在c++中(这个问题在C和c++中都有标记)，如果你不能改变函数来使用异常，你仍然可以使用异常机制，如果你写一个像这样的小助手函数

struct function_failed {};
void attempt(bool retval)
{
  if (!retval)
    throw function_failed(); // or a more specific exception class
}

然后你的代码可以如下所示:

try
{
  attempt(executeStepA());
  attempt(executeStepB());
  attempt(executeStepC());
}
catch (function_failed)
{
  // -- this block intentionally left empty --
}

executeThisFunctionInAnyCase();

如果你喜欢花哨的语法，你可以通过显式强制转换来让它工作:

struct function_failed {};
struct attempt
{
  attempt(bool retval)
  {
    if (!retval)
      throw function_failed();
  }
};

然后您可以将代码编写为

try
{
  (attempt) executeStepA();
  (attempt) executeStepB();
  (attempt) executeStepC();
}
catch (function_failed)
{
  // -- this block intentionally left empty --
}

executeThisFunctionInAnyCase();

因为你也有……代码块…]在执行之间，我猜你有内存分配或对象初始化。通过这种方式，你必须关心在退出时你已经初始化的所有东西，如果你遇到问题，任何函数都会返回false，也要清理它。

在这种情况下，根据我的经验(当我使用CryptoAPI时)，最好的方法是创建小类，在构造函数中初始化数据，在析构函数中反初始化数据。下一个函数类必须是前一个函数类的子类。如果出错-抛出异常。

class CondA
{
public:
    CondA() { 
        if (!executeStepA()) 
            throw int(1);
        [Initialize data]
    }
    ~CondA() {        
        [Clean data]
    }
    A* _a;
};

class CondB : public CondA
{
public:
    CondB() { 
        if (!executeStepB()) 
            throw int(2);
        [Initialize data]
    }
    ~CondB() {        
        [Clean data]
    }
    B* _b;
};

class CondC : public CondB
{
public:
    CondC() { 
        if (!executeStepC()) 
            throw int(3);
        [Initialize data]
    }
    ~CondC() {        
        [Clean data]
    }
    C* _c;
};

然后在你的代码中你只需要调用:

shared_ptr<CondC> C(nullptr);
try{
    C = make_shared<CondC>();
}
catch(int& e)
{
    //do something
}
if (C != nullptr)
{
   C->a;//work with
   C->b;//work with
   C->c;//work with
}
executeThisFunctionInAnyCase();

我想这是最好的解决方案，如果每次调用ConditionX初始化一些东西，分配内存等。最好确保所有东西都被清理干净。

Don't. Sometimes you need the complexity. The trick is how you do it. Having the "what you do when the condition exists" may take up some room, making the if statement tree appear larger than it really is. So instead of doing things if a condition is set, just set a variable to a specific value for that case( enumeration or number, like 10,014. After the if tree, then have a case statement, and for that specific value, do whatever you would have done in the if tree. It will lighten up the tree. if x1 if x2 if x3 Var1:=100016; endif endif end if case var=100016 do case 100016 things...

为什么使用OOP?在伪代码:

abstract class Abstraction():
   function executeStepA(){...};
   function executeStepB(){...};   
   function executeStepC(){...};
   function executeThisFunctionInAnyCase(){....}
   abstract function execute():

class A(Abstraction){
   function execute(){
      executeStepA();
      executeStepB();
      executeStepC();
   }
}
 class B(Abstraction){
   function execute(){
      executeStepA();
      executeStepB();
   }
}
class C(Abstraction){
     function execute(){
       executeStepA();
     }
}

这样你的如果就消失了

item.execute();
item.executeThisFunctionInAnyCase();

通常，使用OOP可以避免if。

有一种很好的技术，它不需要使用return语句的额外包装器函数(Itjax规定的方法)。它使用了一个do while(0)伪循环。while(0)确保它实际上不是一个循环，而是只执行一次。但是，循环语法允许使用break语句。

void foo()
{
  // ...
  do {
      if (!executeStepA())
          break;
      if (!executeStepB())
          break;
      if (!executeStepC())
          break;
  }
  while (0);
  // ...
}

如果条件被移动到单独的步骤下，条件可以被简化，这是一个c#伪代码，

其思想是使用编排而不是中央编排。

void Main()
{
    Request request = new Request();
    Response response = null;

    // enlist all the processors
    var processors = new List<IProcessor>() {new StepA() };

    var factory = new ProcessorFactory(processors);

    // execute as a choreography rather as a central orchestration.
    var processor = factory.Get(request, response);
    while (processor != null)
    {
        processor.Handle(request, out response);
        processor = factory.Get(request, response); 
    }

    // final result...
    //response
}

public class Request
{
}

public class Response
{
}

public interface IProcessor
{
    bool CanProcess(Request request, Response response);
    bool Handle(Request request, out Response response);
}

public interface IProcessorFactory
{
    IProcessor Get(Request request, Response response);
}   

public class ProcessorFactory : IProcessorFactory
{
    private readonly IEnumerable<IProcessor> processors;

    public ProcessorFactory(IEnumerable<IProcessor> processors)
    {
        this.processors = processors;
    }

    public IProcessor Get(Request request, Response response)
    {
        // this is an iterator
        var matchingProcessors = processors.Where(x => x.CanProcess(request, response)).ToArray();

        if (!matchingProcessors.Any())
        {
            return null;
        }

        return matchingProcessors[0];
    }
}

// Individual request processors, you will have many of these...
public class StepA: IProcessor
{
    public bool CanProcess(Request request, Response response)
    {
        // Validate wether this can be processed -- if condition here
        return false;
    }

    public bool Handle(Request request, out Response response)
    {
        response = null;
        return false;
    }
}