例程可以有参数，这不是新闻。您可以根据需要定义任意多的参数，但是过多的参数会使您的例程难以理解和维护。
当然，您可以使用结构化变量作为解决方法:将所有这些变量放在单个结构中并将其传递给例程。事实上，使用结构来简化参数列表是Steve McConnell在Code Complete中描述的技术之一。但正如他所说:
谨慎的程序员避免将数据捆绑在一起，除非逻辑上是必要的。
因此，如果你的例程有太多的参数，或者你使用一个结构体来掩盖一个大的参数列表，你可能做错了什么。也就是说，你没有保持耦合松散。
我的问题是，什么时候我可以认为一个参数列表太大?我认为5个以上的参数太多了。你怎么看?
当前回答
非常感谢你的所有回答:
It was a bit surprising to find people who also think (like I do) that 5 parameters is a good limit for the sanity of the code. Generally, people tend to agree that a limit between 3 and 4 is good rule of thumb. This is reasonable as people usually have a bad time counting more than 4 things. As Milan points, on average people can keep more or less 7 things in their head at a time. But I think that you can't forget that, when you are designing/maintaining/studying a routine, you have to keep in mind more things than just the parameters. Some people consider that a routine should have as many arguments as it needs to. I agree, but only for a few specific cases (calls to OS APIs, routines where optimization is important, etc). I suggest to hide the complexity of these routines by adding a layer of abstraction just above these calls whenever possible. Nick has some interesting thoughts on this. If you don't want to read his comments, I summarize for you: in a nutshell, it depends: I hate making hard and fast rules like this because the answer changes not only depending on the size and scope of your project, but I think it changes even down to the module level. Depending on what your method is doing, or what the class is supposed to represent, it's quite possible that 2 arguments is too many and is a symptom of too much coupling. The moral here is don't be afraid of showing your code to your peers, discuss with them and try to "identify areas where you have low cohesion and tight coupling". Finally, I think wnoise much agrees with Nick, and concludes his satirical contribution with this poetical vision (see comments below) of the art of programming: Programming is not engineering. Organization of code is an art because it depends on human factors, which depend too much on context for any hard rule.
其他回答
我基本上同意5，但是，如果在我需要更多的情况下，这是解决问题的最清晰的方法，那么我会使用更多。
我过去使用的一些代码使用全局变量，只是为了避免传递太多参数。
请不要这样做!
(通常)。
我的经验法则是，我需要能够长时间地记住参数，以便查看调用并判断它做了什么。如果我不能看这个方法然后翻到一个方法的调用记住哪个参数是做什么的那就太多了。
对我来说，大约等于5，但我没有那么聪明。你的里程可能会有所不同。
您可以创建一个带有属性的对象来保存参数，并在超出设置的任何限制时将其传入。参见Martin Fowler的《重构》一书和简化方法调用的章节。
如果您开始在心里计算签名中的参数，并将它们与调用匹配，那么是时候重构了!
多了一个。我并不是说要油嘴滑舌，但是有些函数确实需要一些选项。例如:
void *
mmap(void *addr, size_t len, int prot, int flags, int fildes, off_t offset);
有6个论点，每一个都是必不可少的。此外，它们之间没有共同的联系来证明捆绑销售是合理的。也许你可以定义“struct mapargs”，但那更糟糕。
