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

对我来说,当(0)是好的时候做{…}。如果您不想看到do{…}while(0),您可以为它们定义替代关键字。

例子:

SomeUtilities.hpp:

#define BEGIN_TEST do{
#define END_TEST }while(0);

SomeSourceFile.cpp:

BEGIN_TEST
   if(!condition1) break;
   if(!condition2) break;
   if(!condition3) break;
   if(!condition4) break;
   if(!condition5) break;
   
   //processing code here

END_TEST

我认为编译器将在二进制版本的do{…}while(0)中删除不必要的while(0)条件,并将断点转换为无条件跳转。您可以检查它的汇编语言版本来确定。

使用goto还可以生成更简洁的代码,并且使用条件-然后跳转的逻辑非常简单。您可以执行以下操作:

{
   if(!condition1) goto end_blahblah;
   if(!condition2) goto end_blahblah;
   if(!condition3) goto end_blahblah;
   if(!condition4) goto end_blahblah;
   if(!condition5) goto end_blahblah;
   
   //processing code here

 }end_blah_blah:;  //use appropriate label here to describe...
                   //  ...the whole code inside the block.
 

注意标签放在结束}之后。这是避免一个可能的问题,在goto中,不小心将代码放在中间,因为你没有看到标签。现在就像do{…}while(0)没有条件代码。

为了让代码更清晰,更容易理解,你可以这样做:

SomeUtilities.hpp:

#define BEGIN_TEST {
#define END_TEST(_test_label_) }_test_label_:;
#define FAILED(_test_label_) goto _test_label_

SomeSourceFile.cpp:

BEGIN_TEST
   if(!condition1) FAILED(NormalizeData);
   if(!condition2) FAILED(NormalizeData);
   if(!condition3) FAILED(NormalizeData);
   if(!condition4) FAILED(NormalizeData);
   if(!condition5) FAILED(NormalizeData);

END_TEST(NormalizeData)

有了这个,你可以做嵌套块,并指定你想要退出/跳出的位置。

BEGIN_TEST
   if(!condition1) FAILED(NormalizeData);
   if(!condition2) FAILED(NormalizeData);

   BEGIN_TEST
      if(!conditionAA) FAILED(DecryptBlah);
      if(!conditionBB) FAILED(NormalizeData);   //Jump out to the outmost block
      if(!conditionCC) FAILED(DecryptBlah);
  
      // --We can now decrypt and do other stuffs.

   END_TEST(DecryptBlah)

   if(!condition3) FAILED(NormalizeData);
   if(!condition4) FAILED(NormalizeData);

   // --other code here

   BEGIN_TEST
      if(!conditionA) FAILED(TrimSpaces);
      if(!conditionB) FAILED(TrimSpaces);
      if(!conditionC) FAILED(NormalizeData);   //Jump out to the outmost block
      if(!conditionD) FAILED(TrimSpaces);

      // --We can now trim completely or do other stuffs.

   END_TEST(TrimSpaces)

   // --Other code here...

   if(!condition5) FAILED(NormalizeData);

   //Ok, we got here. We can now process what we need to process.

END_TEST(NormalizeData)

杂乱的代码不是goto的错,而是程序员的错。不使用goto仍然可以生成意大利面条代码。

其他回答

在函数中隔离这些决策并使用返回而不是中断被认为是可以接受的实践。虽然所有这些检查都对应于与函数相同的抽象级别,但这是一种非常符合逻辑的方法。

例如:

void foo(...)
{
   if (!condition)
   {
      return;
   }
   ...
   if (!other condition)
   {
      return;
   }
   ...
   if (!another condition)
   {
      return;
   }
   ... 
   if (!yet another condition)
   {
      return;
   }
   ...
   // Some unconditional stuff       
}

当然不是答案,而是一个答案(为了完整起见)

而不是:

do {
    if(!check()) break;
    ...
    ...
    if(!check()) break;
    ...
    ...
    if(!check()) break;
    ...
    ...
} while(0);

你可以这样写:

switch (0) {
case 0:
    if(!check()) break;
    ...
    ...
    if(!check()) break;
    ...
    ...
    if(!check()) break;
    ...
    ...
}

这仍然是一个伪装的goto,但至少它不再是一个循环。这意味着你不需要非常仔细地检查是否有一些继续隐藏在块的某处。

构造也非常简单,您可以希望编译器会优化它。

正如@jamesdlin所建议的,你甚至可以把它隐藏在一个宏后面

#define BLOC switch(0) case 0:

然后像这样使用它

BLOC {
    if(!check()) break;
    ...
    ...
    if(!check()) break;
    ...
    ...
    if(!check()) break;
    ...
    ...
}

这是可能的,因为C语言语法期望在开关之后有一个语句,而不是一个括号中的块,并且您可以在该语句之前放置一个case标签。到目前为止,我还没有看到允许这样做的意义,但在这种特殊情况下,将开关隐藏在一个漂亮的宏后面是很方便的。

有些时候,使用goto实际上是正确的答案——至少对那些没有在宗教信仰中长大的人来说,“不管问题是什么,goto永远都不是答案”——这是其中的一个例子。

此代码使用了do{…}, (0);唯一的目的就是把一个傻瓜打扮成休息的样子。如果你打算使用goto,那就公开使用它。让代码更难阅读是没有意义的。

一种特殊的情况是当你有很多代码和相当复杂的条件时:

void func()
{
   setup of lots of stuff
   ...
   if (condition)
   {
      ... 
      ...
      if (!other condition)
      {
          ...
          if (another condition)
          {
              ... 
              if (yet another condition)
              {
                  ...
                  if (...)
                     ... 
              }
          }
      }
  .... 

  }
  finish up. 
}

没有如此复杂的逻辑,实际上可以更清楚地表明代码是正确的。

void func()
{
   setup of lots of stuff
   ...
   if (!condition)
   {
      goto finish;
   }
   ... 
   ...
   if (other condition)
   {
      goto finish;
   }
   ...
   if (!another condition)
   {
      goto finish;
   }
   ... 
   if (!yet another condition)
   {
      goto finish;
   }
   ... 
   .... 
   if (...)
         ...    // No need to use goto here. 
 finish:
   finish up. 
}

编辑:澄清一下,我绝不是建议使用goto作为通用解决方案。但在某些情况下,goto是比其他解决方案更好的解决方案。

例如,想象一下,我们正在收集一些数据,测试的不同条件是某种“这是正在收集的数据的结束”——这取决于某种“继续/结束”标记,这些标记根据您在数据流中的位置而变化。

现在,当我们完成之后,我们需要将数据保存到一个文件中。

是的,通常有其他解决方案可以提供合理的解决方案,但并不总是如此。

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.

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