我不是特别喜欢在这种情况下使用break或return的方法。考虑到通常当我们面对这样的情况时，这通常是一个比较长的方法。

如果我们有多个出口点，当我们想要知道什么会导致某些逻辑被执行时，这可能会造成困难:通常情况下，我们只是继续向上包含该逻辑的块，而这些块的标准告诉我们情况:

例如,

if (conditionA) {
    ....
    if (conditionB) {
        ....
        if (conditionC) {
            myLogic();
        }
    }
}

通过查看封闭块，很容易发现myLogic()只在条件a和条件b和条件c为真时发生。

当有早期的回报时，它变得不那么明显:

if (conditionA) {
    ....
    if (!conditionB) {
        return;
    }
    if (!conditionD) {
        return;
    }
    if (conditionC) {
        myLogic();
    }
}

我们不能再从myLogic()向上导航，查看封闭块来找出条件。

我使用了不同的变通方法。这是其中之一:

if (conditionA) {
    isA = true;
    ....
}

if (isA && conditionB) {
    isB = true;
    ...
}

if (isB && conditionC) {
    isC = true;
    myLogic();
}

(当然欢迎用同一个变量替换所有isA isB isC)

这样的方法至少会让代码的读者知道，当isB && conditionC时执行myLogic()。给读者一个提示，他需要进一步查找使isB为真的原因。

为什么标记法没有被回答，这是自古以来使用的方法。

//you can use something like this (pseudocode)
long var = 0;
if(condition)  flag a bit in var
if(condition)  flag another bit in var
if(condition)  flag another bit in var
............
if(var == certain number) {
Do the required task
}

使用异常。您的代码将看起来更加清晰(并且创建异常正是为了处理程序执行流中的错误)。有关清理资源(文件描述符，数据库连接等)，请阅读文章“为什么c++不提供一个“finally”结构?”

#include <iostream>
#include <stdexcept>   // For exception, runtime_error, out_of_range

int main () {
    try {
        if (!condition)
            throw std::runtime_error("nope.");
        ...
        if (!other condition)
            throw std::runtime_error("nope again.");
        ...
        if (!another condition)
            throw std::runtime_error("told you.");
        ...
        if (!yet another condition)
            throw std::runtime_error("OK, just forget it...");
    }
    catch (std::runtime_error &e) {
        std::cout << e.what() << std::endl;
    }
    catch (...) {
        std::cout << "Caught an unknown exception\n";
    }
    return 0;
}

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

如果根据故障发生的位置需要不同的清理步骤，另一个模式很有用:

    private ResultCode DoEverything()
    {
        ResultCode processResult = ResultCode.FAILURE;
        if (DoStep1() != ResultCode.SUCCESSFUL)
        {
            Step1FailureCleanup();
        }
        else if (DoStep2() != ResultCode.SUCCESSFUL)
        {
            Step2FailureCleanup();
            processResult = ResultCode.SPECIFIC_FAILURE;
        }
        else if (DoStep3() != ResultCode.SUCCESSFUL)
        {
            Step3FailureCleanup();
        }
        ...
        else
        {
            processResult = ResultCode.SUCCESSFUL;
        }
        return processResult;
    }

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       
}