假设我有这样的伪代码:

bool conditionA = executeStepA();
if (conditionA){
    bool conditionB = executeStepB();
    if (conditionB){
        bool conditionC = executeStepC();
        if (conditionC){
            ...
        }
    }
}

executeThisFunctionInAnyCase();

函数executeStepX当且仅当前一个成功时执行。 在任何情况下,executeThisFunctionInAnyCase函数都应该在最后被调用。 我在编程方面是一个新手,所以很抱歉提出一个非常基本的问题:有没有一种方法(例如在C/ c++中)以代码易读性为代价,避免长if链产生那种“金字塔式代码”?

我知道如果我们可以跳过executeThisFunctionInAnyCase函数调用,代码可以简化为:

bool conditionA = executeStepA();
if (!conditionA) return;
bool conditionB = executeStepB();
if (!conditionB) return;
bool conditionC = executeStepC();
if (!conditionC) return;

但是约束是executeThisFunctionInAnyCase函数调用。 break语句可以以某种方式使用吗?


当前回答

As @Jefffrey said, you can use the conditional short-circuit feature in almost every language, I personally dislike conditional statements with more than 2 condition (more than a single && or ||), just a matter of style. This code does the same (and probably would compile the same) and it looks a bit cleaner to me. You don't need curly braces, breaks, returns, functions, lambdas (only c++11), objects, etc. as long as every function in executeStepX() returns a value that can be cast to true if the next statement is to be executed or false otherwise.

if (executeStepA())
 if (executeStepB())
  if (executeStepC())
   //...
    if (executeStepN()); // <-- note the ';'

executeThisFunctionInAnyCase();

任何时候,任何函数返回false,都不会调用下一个函数。

我喜欢@Mayerz的答案,因为你可以在运行时改变要调用的函数(以及它们的顺序)。这有点像观察者模式,其中有一组订阅者(函数、对象等),只要满足给定的任意条件,就会调用和执行这些订阅者。在许多情况下,这可能是一个过度杀戮,所以明智地使用它:)

其他回答

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。

正如Rommik提到的,您可以为此应用设计模式,但我将使用Decorator模式而不是Strategy,因为您想要链式调用。如果代码很简单,那么我会选择一个结构良好的答案来防止嵌套。但是,如果它很复杂或者需要动态链接,那么Decorator模式是一个很好的选择。这是一个yUML类图:

下面是一个示例LinqPad c#程序:

void Main()
{
    IOperation step = new StepC();
    step = new StepB(step);
    step = new StepA(step);
    step.Next();
}

public interface IOperation 
{
    bool Next();
}

public class StepA : IOperation
{
    private IOperation _chain;
    public StepA(IOperation chain=null)
    {
        _chain = chain;
    }

    public bool Next() 
    {
        bool localResult = false;
        //do work
        //...
        // set localResult to success of this work
        // just for this example, hard coding to true
        localResult = true;
        Console.WriteLine("Step A success={0}", localResult);

        //then call next in chain and return
        return (localResult && _chain != null) 
            ? _chain.Next() 
            : true;
    }
}

public class StepB : IOperation
{
    private IOperation _chain;
    public StepB(IOperation chain=null)
    {
        _chain = chain;
    }

    public bool Next() 
    {   
        bool localResult = false;

        //do work
        //...
        // set localResult to success of this work
        // just for this example, hard coding to false, 
            // to show breaking out of the chain
        localResult = false;
        Console.WriteLine("Step B success={0}", localResult);

        //then call next in chain and return
        return (localResult && _chain != null) 
            ? _chain.Next() 
            : true;
    }
}

public class StepC : IOperation
{
    private IOperation _chain;
    public StepC(IOperation chain=null)
    {
        _chain = chain;
    }

    public bool Next() 
    {
        bool localResult = false;
        //do work
        //...
        // set localResult to success of this work
        // just for this example, hard coding to true
        localResult = true;
        Console.WriteLine("Step C success={0}", localResult);
        //then call next in chain and return
        return (localResult && _chain != null) 
            ? _chain.Next() 
            : true;
    }
}

恕我直言,关于设计模式最好的书是《Head First design patterns》。

另一种方法是do - while循环,尽管之前提到过,但没有例子可以显示它的样子:

do
{
    if (!executeStepA()) break;
    if (!executeStepB()) break;
    if (!executeStepC()) break;
    ...

    break; // skip the do-while condition :)
}
while (0);

executeThisFunctionInAnyCase();

(好吧,while循环已经有了一个答案,但do - while循环不会冗余检查true(在开始时),而是在结束时检查xD(尽管可以跳过))。

你可以使用&&(逻辑与):

if (executeStepA() && executeStepB() && executeStepC()){
    ...
}
executeThisFunctionInAnyCase();

这将满足你的两个要求:

executeStep<X>()应该只在前一个成功时才计算(这称为短路计算) executeThisFunctionInAnyCase()将在任何情况下执行

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;
    }
}