当代码流是这样的:
if(check())
{
...
...
if(check())
{
...
...
if(check())
{
...
...
}
}
}
我通常看到这种方法可以避免上述混乱的代码流:
do {
if(!check()) break;
...
...
if(!check()) break;
...
...
if(!check()) break;
...
...
} while(0);
有什么更好的方法可以避免这种工作/黑客，从而使其成为更高级别(行业级别)的代码?
任何跳出盒子的建议都是欢迎的!
当前回答
你可以使用一个简单的bool变量的延续模式:
bool goOn;
if ((goOn = check0())) {
...
}
if (goOn && (goOn = check1())) {
...
}
if (goOn && (goOn = check2())) {
...
}
if (goOn && (goOn = check3())) {
...
}
这个执行链将在checkN返回false时停止。由于&&操作符短路，将不再执行进一步的检查…()调用。此外，优化编译器足够聪明，可以识别将goOn设置为false是单行道，并为您插入缺少的goto结尾。因此，上面代码的性能将与do/while(0)相同，只是对其可读性没有严重的影响。
其他回答
I'm adding an answer for the sake of completeness. A number of other answers pointed out that the large condition block could be split out into a separate function. But as was also pointed out a number of times is that this approach separates the conditional code from the original context. This is one reason that lambdas were added to the language in C++11. Using lambdas was suggested by others but no explicit sample was provided. I've put one in this answer. What strikes me is that it feels very similar to the do { } while(0) approach in many ways - and maybe that means it's still a goto in disguise....
earlier operations
...
[&]()->void {
if (!check()) return;
...
...
if (!check()) return;
...
...
if (!check()) return;
...
...
}();
later operations
你可以使用一个简单的bool变量的延续模式:
bool goOn;
if ((goOn = check0())) {
...
}
if (goOn && (goOn = check1())) {
...
}
if (goOn && (goOn = check2())) {
...
}
if (goOn && (goOn = check3())) {
...
}
这个执行链将在checkN返回false时停止。由于&&操作符短路，将不再执行进一步的检查…()调用。此外，优化编译器足够聪明，可以识别将goOn设置为false是单行道，并为您插入缺少的goto结尾。因此，上面代码的性能将与do/while(0)相同，只是对其可读性没有严重的影响。
也许就像这样
#define EVER ;;
for(EVER)
{
if(!check()) break;
}
或者使用异常
try
{
for(;;)
if(!check()) throw 1;
}
catch()
{
}
使用异常还可以传递数据。
如果你不需要在执行过程中引入局部变量，那么你通常可以将其平化:
if (check()) {
doStuff();
}
if (stillOk()) {
doMoreStuff();
}
if (amIStillReallyOk()) {
doEvenMore();
}
// edit
doThingsAtEndAndReportErrorStatus()
Try to extract the code into a separate function (or perhaps more than one). Then return from the function if the check fails. If it's too tightly coupled with the surrounding code to do that, and you can't find a way to reduce the coupling, look at the code after this block. Presumably, it cleans up some resources used by the function. Try to manage these resources using an RAII object; then replace each dodgy break with return (or throw, if that's more appropriate) and let the object's destructor clean up for you. If the program flow is (necessarily) so squiggly that you really need a goto, then use that rather than giving it a weird disguise. If you have coding rules that blindly forbid goto, and you really can't simplify the program flow, then you'll probably have to disguise it with your do hack.
