帮助防止在前面的回答中描述的错误的一个选项是内联您希望在不使用大括号时发生的事情。当您尝试修改代码时，很难不注意到错误。

if (condition) doSomething();
else doSomethingElse();

if (condition) doSomething();
    doSomething2(); // Looks pretty obviously wrong
else // doSomethingElse(); also looks pretty obviously wrong

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。

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。

总是使用花括号是一个非常简单而可靠的规则。然而，当有很多大括号时，代码可能看起来不优雅。

如果规则允许省略花括号，那么应该有更详细的样式规则和更复杂的工具。否则，它可能很容易导致混乱和混乱(不优雅)的代码。

因此，从使用的其他样式指南和工具中单独查看单个样式规则可能是徒劳的。我将介绍关于规则3的一些其他答案中没有提到的重要细节。

第一个有趣的细节是，该规则的大多数支持者都同意在else情况下违反该规则。换句话说，他们不希望得到这样的代码:

// Pedantic rule #3
if ( command == Eat )
{
    eat();
}
else
{
    if ( command == Sleep )
    {
        sleep();
    }
    else
    {
        if ( command == Drink )
        {
            drink();
        }
        else
        {
            complain_about_unknown_command();
        }
    }
}

相反，如果他们看到了，他们甚至会建议这样写:

// Not fully conforming to rule #3
if ( command == Eat )
{
    eat();
}
else if ( command == Sleep )
{
    sleep();
}
else if ( command == Drink )
{
    drink();
}
else
{
   complain_about_unknown_command();
}

从技术上讲，这违反了规则3，因为在else和if之间没有花括号，但大多数人认为它更明显，更容易阅读。当试图用不需要动脑筋的工具将规则自动应用到代码库时，规则的这种二元性就会显现出来。的确，为什么要争论呢?只需让一个工具自动应用样式。

第二个细节(也经常被该规则的支持者遗忘)是，可能发生的错觉错误绝不仅仅是因为违反了该规则#3。事实上，这些几乎总是涉及违反规则#1(没有人会争辩)。再一次从自动工具的角度来看，当规则1被违反时，制作一个立即抱怨(甚至修复)的工具并不难，因此可以及时发现大多数错误。

第三个细节(该规则的反对者经常忘记)是由一个分号表示的空语句的令人困惑的性质。大多数具有一定经验的开发人员迟早会被一个放错位置的分号或使用一个分号编写的空语句所迷惑。两个花括号比一个分号更容易识别。

因此，我的建议是，与其同意这些规则，不如同意自动格式化工具的配置，并使其成为构建过程的一部分。这些工具往往比这种争论的参与者更聪明。

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。

wrt 6:它更安全，因为删除空指针是一个无操作。因此，如果您碰巧两次经过这条路径，您不会因为释放空闲内存或已分配给其他内存而导致内存损坏。

这是静态文件作用域对象和单例对象的主要问题，它们没有非常明确的生命周期，并且已知它们在被销毁后会被重新创建。

在大多数情况下，您可以通过使用auto_ptrs来避免这种需要