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。

首先，一个简短的例子来说明为什么goto不是一个好的c++解决方案:

struct Bar {
    Bar();
};

extern bool check();

void foo()
{
    if (!check())
       goto out;

    Bar x;

    out:
}

试着把它编译成一个object文件，看看会发生什么。然后尝试等价的do+ break + while(0)。

这是题外话。主要观点如下。

如果整个函数失败，这些小块的代码通常需要某种类型的清理。当您“展开”部分完成的计算时，这些清理通常希望以与块本身相反的顺序发生。

获得这些语义的一个选项是RAII;参见@utnapistim的回答。c++保证自动析构函数以与构造函数相反的顺序运行，这自然提供了一个“unwind”。

但这需要大量的RAII类。有时一个更简单的选择是使用堆栈:

bool calc1()
{
    if (!check())
        return false;

    // ... Do stuff1 here ...

    if (!calc2()) {
        // ... Undo stuff1 here ...
        return false;
    }

    return true;
}

bool calc2()
{
    if (!check())
        return false;

    // ... Do stuff2 here ...

    if (!calc3()) {
        // ... Undo stuff2 here ...
        return false;
    }

    return true;
}

.．.等等。这很容易审计，因为它把“撤销”代码放在“做”代码旁边。简单的审计是好的。它还使控制流非常清晰。对于C来说，这也是一个有用的模式。

它可能要求calc函数接受大量参数，但如果您的类/结构具有良好的内聚性，这通常不是问题。(也就是说，属于一起的东西生活在一个对象中，所以这些函数可以作为指向少量对象的指针或引用，但仍然可以做很多有用的工作。)

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.

如果你的代码有一个很长的If ..else If ..else语句块，你可以尝试在函子或函数指针的帮助下重写整个块。这可能并不总是正确的解决方案，但通常是正确的。

http://www.cprogramming.com/tutorial/functors-function-objects-in-c++.html

TLDR: RAII、事务性代码(仅设置结果或在已经计算时返回内容)和异常。

长一点的回答:

在C语言中，这类代码的最佳实践是在代码中添加一个EXIT/CLEANUP/other标签，在该标签中进行本地资源的清理，并返回错误代码(如果有的话)。这是最佳实践，因为它将代码自然地划分为初始化、计算、提交和返回:

error_code_type c_to_refactor(result_type *r)
{
    error_code_type result = error_ok; //error_code_type/error_ok defd. elsewhere
    some_resource r1, r2; // , ...;
    if(error_ok != (result = computation1(&r1))) // Allocates local resources
        goto cleanup;
    if(error_ok != (result = computation2(&r2))) // Allocates local resources
        goto cleanup;
    // ...

    // Commit code: all operations succeeded
    *r = computed_value_n;
cleanup:
    free_resource1(r1);
    free_resource2(r2);
    return result;
}

在C语言中，在大多数代码库中，if(error_ok !=…goto代码通常隐藏在一些方便的宏(RET(computation_result)， ENSURE_SUCCESS(computation_result, return_code)等)后面。

c++比C提供了额外的工具:

清理块功能可以作为RAII实现，这意味着您不再需要整个清理块，并允许客户端代码添加早期返回语句。 当无法继续时抛出抛出，转换所有if(error_ok !=…变成直接的通话。

等价的c++代码:

result_type cpp_code()
{
    raii_resource1 r1 = computation1();
    raii_resource2 r2 = computation2();
    // ...
    return computed_value_n;
}

这是最佳实践，因为:

It is explicit (that is, while error handling is not explicit, the main flow of the algorithm is) It is straightforward to write client code It is minimal It is simple It has no repetitive code constructs It uses no macros It doesn't use weird do { ... } while(0) constructs It is reusable with minimal effort (that is, if I want to copy the call to computation2(); to a different function, I don't have to make sure I add a do { ... } while(0) in the new code, nor #define a goto wrapper macro and a cleanup label, nor anything else).

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