我对这位讲师的能力表示怀疑。考虑到他 点:

OK Would anyone really write (or want to read) (b*b) - ((4*a)*c)? Some precedences are obvious (or should be), and the extra parentheses just add to confusion. (On the other hand, you _should_ use the parentheses in less obvious cases, even if you know that they're not needed.) Sort of. There are two wide spread conventions for formatting conditionals and loops: if ( cond ) { code; } and: if ( cond ) { code; } In the first, I'd agree with him. The opening { is not that visible, so it's best to assume it's always there. In the second, however, I (and most of the people I've worked with) have no problem with omitting the braces for a single statement. (Provided, of course, that the indentation is systematic and that you use this style consistently. (And a lot of very good programmers, writing very readable code, omit the braces even when formatting the first way.) NO. Things like if ( NULL == ptr ) are ugly enough to hinder readability. Write the comparisons intuitively. (Which in many cases results in the constant on the right.) His 4 is bad advice; anything which makes the code unnatural makes it less readable. NO. Anything but int is reserved for special cases. To experienced C and C++ programmers, the use of unsigned signals bit operators. C++ doesn't have a real cardinal type (or any other effective subrange type); unsigned doesn't work for numeric values, because of the promotion rules. Numerical values on which no arithmetic operations would make sense, like serial numbers, could presumably be unsigned. I'd argue against it, however, because it sends the wrong message: bitwise operations don't make sense either. The basic rule is that integral types are int, _unless_ there is a significant reason for using another type. NO. Doing this systematically is misleading, and doesn't actually protect against anything. In strict OO code, delete this; is often the most frequent case (and you can't set this to NULL), and otherwise, most delete are in destructors, so you can't access the pointer later anyway. And setting it to NULL doesn't do anything about any other pointers floating around. Setting the pointer systematically to NULL gives a false sense of security, and doesn't really buy you anything.

查看任何典型参考文献中的代码。Stroustrup违反 除了第一条，你给出的每一条规则。

我建议你换个讲师。一个真正知道什么的人 他说的是。

另一个添加花括号的例子。

有一次我在搜索一个bug，发现了这样的代码:

void SomeSimpleEventHandler()
{
    SomeStatementAtTheBeginningNumber1;
    if (conditionX) SomeRegularStatement;
    SomeStatementAtTheBeginningNumber2;
    SomeStatementAtTheBeginningNumber3;
    if (!SomeConditionIsMet()) return;
    OtherwiseSomeAdditionalStatement1;
    OtherwiseSomeAdditionalStatement2;
    OtherwiseSomeAdditionalStatement3;
}

如果你逐行阅读这个方法，你会注意到方法中有一个条件，如果不为真就返回。但实际上，它看起来像其他100个简单的事件处理程序，它们基于某些条件设置一些变量。有一天，Fast Coder进来了，在方法的末尾添加了额外的变量设置语句:

{
    ...
    OtherwiseSomeAdditionalStatement3;
    SetAnotherVariableUnconditionally;
}

因此，setanothervariable无条件地在SomeConditionIsMet()时执行，但速度快的家伙没有注意到它，因为所有的行几乎都是相似的大小，即使返回条件垂直缩进，它也不那么明显。

如果条件返回的格式如下:

if (!SomeConditionIsMet())
{
    return;
}

它是非常明显的，快速编码器一眼就能发现它。

我正在处理的代码库被那些病态地厌恶大括号的人分散在代码中，对于后来的人来说，它确实可以对可维护性产生影响。

我遇到的最常见的问题是:

if (really incredibly stupidly massively long statement that exceeds the width of the editor) do_foo;
    this_looks_like_a_then-statement_but_isn't;

所以当我出现并希望添加一个then语句时，如果我不小心，我很容易以这样的方式结束:

if (really incredibly stupidly massively long statement that exceeds the width of the editor) do_foo;
{
    this_looks_like_a_then-statement_but_isn't;
    i_want_this_to_be_a_then-statement_but_it's_not;
}

考虑到添加大括号需要1秒左右的时间，并且可以为您节省至少几分钟的调试时间，为什么不选择减少歧义性呢?在我看来这是虚假的节约。

我的2 c:

使用缩进

很明显

永远不要依赖运算符优先级——总是使用括号

我不会使用“从不”和“总是”这样的词，但总的来说，我认为这条规则是有用的。在某些语言(Lisp, Smalltalk)中，这不是问题。

总是使用{}块-即使是单行

我从来没有这样做过，也从来没有遇到过任何问题，但我可以看到它对学生有什么好处，特别是如果他们以前学过Python的话。

Const对象在比较的左边

尤达条件?不,请。它损害了可读性。在编译代码时使用最大警告级别即可。

对于>= 0的变量使用unsigned

好的。有趣的是，我听到斯特劳斯特鲁普不同意。

删除后将指针设置为NULL -双重删除保护

坏的建议!永远不要使用指向已删除或不存在的对象的指针。

当你完成它时，最好将指针设置为NULL。

下面是一个例子:

A类行为如下:

分配一块内存 然后一段时间后，它删除这块内存，但不将指针设置为NULL

B类做以下事情

分配内存(在这个实例中，它得到的内存块恰好与类a删除的内存块相同)

在这一点上，类A和类B都有指向同一个内存块的指针，就类A而言，这块内存块不存在，因为它已经用完了。

考虑以下问题:

如果在类a中有一个逻辑错误，导致它写入现在属于类B的内存呢?

在这个特定的实例中，您不会得到一个糟糕的访问异常错误，因为内存地址是合法的，而类A现在有效地破坏了类B数据。

类B可能最终崩溃，如果它遇到意外值，当它崩溃时，很有可能，当问题出现在类a时，您将花费相当长的时间在类B中查找这个bug。

如果您已经将删除的内存指针设置为NULL，那么只要类A中的任何逻辑错误试图写入NULL指针，您就会得到一个异常错误。

如果您担心在指针第二次为NULL时使用双重删除会出现逻辑错误，那么可以为此添加assert。

我能想到的最贴切的例子是:

if(someCondition)
   if(someOtherCondition)
      DoSomething();
else
   DoSomethingElse();

Which if will the else be paired with? Indentation implies that the outer if gets the else, but that's not actually how the compiler will see it; the inner if will get the else, and the outer if doesn't. You would have to know that (or see it behave that way in debugging mode) to figure out by inspection why this code might be failing your expectations. It gets more confusing if you know Python; in that case you know that indentation defines code blocks, so you would expect it to evaluate according to the indentation. C#, however, doesn't give a flying flip about whitespace.

话虽如此，从表面上看，我并不特别同意这个“总是使用括号”的规则。它使代码的垂直噪声非常大，降低了快速读取代码的能力。如果语句是:

if(someCondition)
   DoSomething();

... then it should be written just like this. The statement "always use brackets" sounds like "always surround mathematical operations with parentheses". That would turn the very simple statement a * b + c / d into ((a * b) + (c / d)), introducing the possibility of missing a close-paren (the bane of many a coder), and for what? The order of operations is well-known and well-enforced, so the parentheses are redundant. You'd only use parentheses to enforce a different order of operations than would normally be applied: a * (b+c) / d for instance. Block braces are similar; use them to define what you want to do in cases where it differs from the default, and is not "obvious" (subjective, but usually pretty common-sense).