为了补充之前回答中非常明智的建议，我在重构一些代码时遇到的一个例子是:我正在修改一个非常大的代码库，从一个API切换到另一个API。第一个API调用设置Company Id，如下:

setCompIds( const std::string& compId, const std::string& compSubId );

而替换需要两次调用:

setCompId( const std::string& compId );
setCompSubId( const std::string& compSubId );

我开始使用正则表达式来改变这种情况，这非常成功。我们还通过样式传递代码，这确实使它更易于阅读。然后，在审查过程中，我发现在某些条件下，它正在改变:

if ( condition )
   setCompIds( compId, compSubId );

:

if ( condition )
   setCompId( compId );
setCompSubId( compSubId );

这显然不是我们所需要的。我不得不回到一开始，再次将替换处理为完全在一个块内，然后手动修改任何最终看起来愚蠢的东西(至少它不会是不正确的)。

我注意到style现在有了一个选项——add-括号，它允许你在没有括号的地方添加括号，如果你发现自己处于和我一样的位置，我强烈建议你这样做。

我能想到的最贴切的例子是:

if(someCondition)
   if(someOtherCondition)
      DoSomething();
else
   DoSomethingElse();

Which if will the else be paired with? Indentation implies that the outer if gets the else, but that's not actually how the compiler will see it; the inner if will get the else, and the outer if doesn't. You would have to know that (or see it behave that way in debugging mode) to figure out by inspection why this code might be failing your expectations. It gets more confusing if you know Python; in that case you know that indentation defines code blocks, so you would expect it to evaluate according to the indentation. C#, however, doesn't give a flying flip about whitespace.

话虽如此，从表面上看，我并不特别同意这个“总是使用括号”的规则。它使代码的垂直噪声非常大，降低了快速读取代码的能力。如果语句是:

if(someCondition)
   DoSomething();

... then it should be written just like this. The statement "always use brackets" sounds like "always surround mathematical operations with parentheses". That would turn the very simple statement a * b + c / d into ((a * b) + (c / d)), introducing the possibility of missing a close-paren (the bane of many a coder), and for what? The order of operations is well-known and well-enforced, so the parentheses are redundant. You'd only use parentheses to enforce a different order of operations than would normally be applied: a * (b+c) / d for instance. Block braces are similar; use them to define what you want to do in cases where it differs from the default, and is not "obvious" (subjective, but usually pretty common-sense).

我正在处理的代码库被那些病态地厌恶大括号的人分散在代码中，对于后来的人来说，它确实可以对可维护性产生影响。

我遇到的最常见的问题是:

if (really incredibly stupidly massively long statement that exceeds the width of the editor) do_foo;
    this_looks_like_a_then-statement_but_isn't;

所以当我出现并希望添加一个then语句时，如果我不小心，我很容易以这样的方式结束:

if (really incredibly stupidly massively long statement that exceeds the width of the editor) do_foo;
{
    this_looks_like_a_then-statement_but_isn't;
    i_want_this_to_be_a_then-statement_but_it's_not;
}

考虑到添加大括号需要1秒左右的时间，并且可以为您节省至少几分钟的调试时间，为什么不选择减少歧义性呢?在我看来这是虚假的节约。

我对这位讲师的能力表示怀疑。考虑到他 点:

OK Would anyone really write (or want to read) (b*b) - ((4*a)*c)? Some precedences are obvious (or should be), and the extra parentheses just add to confusion. (On the other hand, you _should_ use the parentheses in less obvious cases, even if you know that they're not needed.) Sort of. There are two wide spread conventions for formatting conditionals and loops: if ( cond ) { code; } and: if ( cond ) { code; } In the first, I'd agree with him. The opening { is not that visible, so it's best to assume it's always there. In the second, however, I (and most of the people I've worked with) have no problem with omitting the braces for a single statement. (Provided, of course, that the indentation is systematic and that you use this style consistently. (And a lot of very good programmers, writing very readable code, omit the braces even when formatting the first way.) NO. Things like if ( NULL == ptr ) are ugly enough to hinder readability. Write the comparisons intuitively. (Which in many cases results in the constant on the right.) His 4 is bad advice; anything which makes the code unnatural makes it less readable. NO. Anything but int is reserved for special cases. To experienced C and C++ programmers, the use of unsigned signals bit operators. C++ doesn't have a real cardinal type (or any other effective subrange type); unsigned doesn't work for numeric values, because of the promotion rules. Numerical values on which no arithmetic operations would make sense, like serial numbers, could presumably be unsigned. I'd argue against it, however, because it sends the wrong message: bitwise operations don't make sense either. The basic rule is that integral types are int, _unless_ there is a significant reason for using another type. NO. Doing this systematically is misleading, and doesn't actually protect against anything. In strict OO code, delete this; is often the most frequent case (and you can't set this to NULL), and otherwise, most delete are in destructors, so you can't access the pointer later anyway. And setting it to NULL doesn't do anything about any other pointers floating around. Setting the pointer systematically to NULL gives a false sense of security, and doesn't really buy you anything.

查看任何典型参考文献中的代码。Stroustrup违反 除了第一条，你给出的每一条规则。

我建议你换个讲师。一个真正知道什么的人 他说的是。

如果你是一个编译器，这没有任何区别。两者是一样的。

但是对于程序员来说，第一个更清晰，更容易阅读，更不容易出错。

所有其他答案都捍卫了讲师的规则3。

让我说我同意你的观点:这个规则是多余的，我不建议它。确实，如果你总是添加花括号，理论上可以防止错误。另一方面，我在现实生活中从未遇到过这个问题:与其他答案所暗示的相反，我从未忘记在必要时添加花括号。如果使用适当的缩进，一旦多个语句缩进，就需要立即添加花括号。

Component 10给出的答案实际上突出了唯一可能导致错误的情况。但另一方面，通过正则表达式替换代码总是需要非常小心。

现在让我们看看奖章的另一面:总是使用花括号有缺点吗?其他答案完全忽略了这一点。但也有一个缺点:它占用了大量的垂直屏幕空间，这反过来又会使您的代码不可读，因为这意味着您不得不超出必要的滚动次数。

考虑一个函数在开头有很多保护子句(是的，下面是糟糕的c++代码，但在其他语言中，这将是相当常见的情况):

void some_method(obj* a, obj* b)
{
    if (a == nullptr)
    {
        throw null_ptr_error("a");
    }
    if (b == nullptr)
    {
        throw null_ptr_error("b");
    }
    if (a == b)
    {
        throw logic_error("Cannot do method on identical objects");
    }
    if (not a->precondition_met())
    {
        throw logic_error("Precondition for a not met");
    }

    a->do_something_with(b);
}

这是可怕的代码，我强烈认为下面的代码可读性更强:

void some_method(obj* a, obj* b)
{
    if (a == nullptr)
        throw null_ptr_error("a");
    if (b == nullptr)
        throw null_ptr_error("b");
    if (a == b)
        throw logic_error("Cannot do method on identical objects");
    if (not a->precondition_met())
        throw logic_error("Precondition for a not met");

    a->do_something_with(b);
}

类似地，短嵌套循环可以从省略花括号中获益:

matrix operator +(matrix const& a, matrix const& b) {
    matrix c(a.w(), a.h());

    for (auto i = 0; i < a.w(); ++i)
        for (auto j = 0; j < a.h(); ++j)
            c(i, j) = a(i, j) + b(i, j);

    return c;
}

比较:

matrix operator +(matrix const& a, matrix const& b) {
    matrix c(a.w(), a.h());

    for (auto i = 0; i < a.w(); ++i)
    {
        for (auto j = 0; j < a.h(); ++j)
        {
            c(i, j) = a(i, j) + b(i, j);
        }
    }

    return c;
}

第一个代码很简洁;第二个代码很臃肿。

是的，这可以通过在前一行上加上开大括号在一定程度上得到缓解。所以:如果你坚持使用大括号，至少要把左大括号放在前一行。

简而言之:不要编写占用屏幕空间的不必要代码。

在最初写答案的时间里，我基本上接受了流行的代码风格，使用大括号，除非我能把整个语句放在前一行。我仍然认为不使用冗余大括号通常更具可读性，而且我仍然从未遇到过由此引起的错误。