blocks|key|2256696|text|使用第一个选项，您的代码行数将大大减少。:)|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|2256697|entityMap^0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|D|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|-4|5|6|7|E|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|C|$]]

Your lines of code count will be considerably less with the first option. :)

blocks|key|897061|text|第一种方法在行数方面要小一些(也许这就是开发-Java-图书使用这种语法的原因)。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|897062|第二，IMHO更容易阅读，因为您总是有两个对齐括号。|897063|不管怎么说，它们都被广泛使用，这是你个人喜好的问题。|897064|entityMap^0|0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|H|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|I|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|E|5|6|7|J|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|F|3|-4|5|6|7|K|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|G|$]]

First one is smaller in terms of number of lines (maybe that is why development -Java- books tend to use that syntax)

Second one is, IMHO easier to read as you always have two aligned brackets.

Anyway both of them are widely used, it's a matter of your personal preferences.

blocks|key|731302|text|在过去，我们使用第一种样式(K+&R风格)，因为屏幕更小，代码经常被打印在这种叫做纸的东西上。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|731303|如今，我们有了大屏幕，第二种方法(ANSI样式)可以更容易地查看您的括号是否匹配。|731304|有关更多信息，请参见这里和这里。|offset|length|731305|entityMap|0|LINK|mutability|MUTABLE|url|http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indent_style|1|http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/I/indent-style.html^0|0|0|A|2|0|D|2|1|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|R|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|S|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|E|5|6|7|T|8|@]|9|@$F|U|G|V|1|W]|$F|X|G|Y|1|Z]]|A|$]]|$1|H|3|-4|5|6|7|10|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|I|$J|$5|K|L|M|A|$N|O]]|P|$5|K|L|M|A|$N|Q]]]]

In the old days we used to use the first style (K &amp; R style) because screens were smaller and code was often printed onto this stuff called paper.

These days we have big screen and the second method (ANSI style) makes it easier to see if your brackets match up.

See <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indent_style" rel="noreferrer">HERE</a> and <a href="http://catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/I/indent-style.html" rel="noreferrer">HERE</a> for more information.

blocks|key|897103|text|我认为这完全是主观的，但是，我认为为您的团队建立代码标准并让每个人都使用相同的样式是很重要的。尽管如此，我喜欢第二个(并且让我的团队使用它)，因为它似乎更容易阅读，当它不是您的代码。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|897104|entityMap^0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|D|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|-4|5|6|7|E|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|C|$]]

I think it is completely subjective, however, I think it is important to establish code standards for your team and have everyone use the same style. That being said I like the second one (and have made my team use it) because it seems easier to read when it is not your code.

blocks|key|2256795|text|我用if语句作为在这个高度情绪化的主题上推理的东西。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|2256796|if+(cond)+{
+++//code
}|code-block|syntax|javascript|2256797|只需问一问asking语句是什么样子？以上内容的逻辑延伸如下：|2256798|if+(cond)+{
+++//code+++
}+else+{
+++//more+code
}|2256799|这是可读的吗？我不这么认为，这也太丑了。|2256800|更多的行是！因此，我同意你的后一种选择。|2256801|entityMap^0|0|0|0|0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|Q|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|D|7|R|8|@]|9|@]|A|$E|F]]|$1|G|3|H|5|6|7|S|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|I|3|J|5|D|7|T|8|@]|9|@]|A|$E|F]]|$1|K|3|L|5|6|7|U|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|M|3|N|5|6|7|V|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|O|3|-4|5|6|7|W|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|P|$]]

I use the if statement as something to reason on in this highly emotive subject.

<pre><code>if (cond) {
 //code
}
</code></pre>

by just asking what does the else statement look like? The logical extension of the above is:-

<pre><code>if (cond) {
 //code 
} else {
 //more code
}
</code></pre>

Is that readable? I don't think so and its just plain ugly too.

More lines is != less readable. Hence I'd go with your latter option.

blocks|key|897866|text|谷歌C%2B%2B风格指南建议|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|offset|length|data|897867|在同一行上返回类型作为函数名，参数在同一行上返回(如果它们合适)。
函数如下所示：
ReturnType类名：：FunctionName(+par_name1类型，par_name2类型){+DoSomething()；.}|blockquote|897868|WebKit编码风格指南建议|897869|函数定义:将每个大括号放在自己的行上。
右图：
int+main()+{.}
错：
int+main()+{.}|897870|不过，他们建议把其他东西放在同一条线上。|897871|GNU编码标准建议|897872|在第一列中放置开启C函数体的大括号是很重要的，这样它们就会启动去乐趣。有几个工具在第一栏中寻找打开大括号，以查找C函数的开头。这些工具不适用于不以这种方式格式化的代码。
在函数中时，避免将开括号、开括号或开括号放置在第一列中，这样它们就不会开始玩了。开启结构体的开式大括号可以放在第一列中，如果你觉得把这个定义看作是一种去乐趣很有用的话。
函数定义在第一列中启动函数的名称也很重要。这有助于人们搜索函数定义，并可能帮助某些工具识别它们。因此，使用标准C语法，格式如下：
静态字符*+concat+(char+*s1，char+*s2)+{.}
或者，如果您想使用传统的C语法，将定义格式化如下：
静态字符*+concat+(s1，s2)+/*名称开始于第一列*/+char+*s1，*s2；{第一列中的/*打开大括号在这里*/+.}|897873|正如你所看到的，每个人都有自己的观点。就我个人而言，我更喜欢Perl-ish+braces-on-same-line-except-for-else，，但是只要每个处理代码的人都能合作，这真的不重要。|style|CODE|897874|entityMap|0|LINK|mutability|MUTABLE|url|http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/cppguide.xml|1|http://webkit.org/coding/coding-style.html|2|http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/standards.html^0|0|9|0|0|0|0|C|1|0|0|0|0|7|2|0|0|1Y|4|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|16|8|@]|9|@$A|17|B|18|1|19]]|C|$]]|$1|D|3|E|5|F|7|1A|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]|$1|G|3|H|5|6|7|1B|8|@]|9|@$A|1C|B|1D|1|1E]]|C|$]]|$1|I|3|J|5|F|7|1F|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]|$1|K|3|L|5|6|7|1G|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]|$1|M|3|N|5|6|7|1H|8|@]|9|@$A|1I|B|1J|1|1K]]|C|$]]|$1|O|3|P|5|F|7|1L|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]|$1|Q|3|R|5|6|7|1M|8|@$A|1N|B|1O|S|T]]|9|@]|C|$]]|$1|U|3|-4|5|6|7|1P|8|@]|9|@]|C|$]]]|V|$W|$5|X|Y|Z|C|$10|11]]|12|$5|X|Y|Z|C|$10|13]]|14|$5|X|Y|Z|C|$10|15]]]]

<a href="http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/cppguide.xml" rel="noreferrer">Google C++ Style Guide</a> suggests
<blockquote>
Return type on the same line as function name, parameters on the same line if they fit.
Functions look like this:
<pre><code>ReturnType ClassName::FunctionName(Type par_name1, Type par_name2) {
 DoSomething();
 ...
}
</code></pre>
</blockquote>
<hr />
<a href="http://webkit.org/coding/coding-style.html" rel="noreferrer">WebKit Coding Style Guidelines</a> suggests
<blockquote>
Function definitions: place each brace on its own line.
Right:
<pre><code>int main()
{
 ...
}
</code></pre>
Wrong:
<pre><code>int main() {
 ...
}
</code></pre>
</blockquote>
They suggest braces-on-same-line for everything else, though.
<hr />
<a href="http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards/standards.html" rel="noreferrer">GNU Coding Standards</a> suggests
<blockquote>
It is important to put the open-brace that starts the body of a C function in column one, so that they will start a defun. Several tools look for open-braces in column one to find the beginnings of C functions. These tools will not work on code not formatted that way.
Avoid putting open-brace, open-parenthesis or open-bracket in column one when they are inside a function, so that they won't start a defun. The open-brace that starts a struct body can go in column one if you find it useful to treat that definition as a defun.
It is also important for function definitions to start the name of the function in column one. This helps people to search for function definitions, and may also help certain tools recognize them. Thus, using Standard C syntax, the format is this:
<pre><code>static char *
concat (char *s1, char *s2)
{
 ...
}
</code></pre>
or, if you want to use traditional C syntax, format the definition like this:
<pre><code>static char *
concat (s1, s2) /* Name starts in column one here */
 char *s1, *s2;
{ /* Open brace in column one here */
 ...
}
</code></pre>
</blockquote>
<hr />
As you can see, everybody has their own opinions. Personally, I prefer the Perl-ish braces-on-same-line-except-for-<code>else</code>, but as long as everybody working on the code can cooperate, it really doesn't matter.

blocks|key|2256921|text|就我个人而言，我发现第二个更易读(对齐curlys)。|type|unstyled|depth|inlineStyleRanges|entityRanges|data|2256922|对于一个团队来说，使用默认设置总是最容易的，而且由于Visual和我同意这一点，这就是我的论点。;-)|2256923|entityMap^0|0|0^^$0|@$1|2|3|4|5|6|7|F|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|B|3|C|5|6|7|G|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]|$1|D|3|-4|5|6|7|H|8|@]|9|@]|A|$]]]|E|$]]

Personally I find the second one more readable (aligned curlys).

Its always easiest for a team to go with the defaults, and since Visual Studio and I agree on this, thats my argument. ;-)

<blockquote>
 Possible Duplicates: 
 <a href="https://stackoverflow.com/questions/97506/formatting-of-if-statements">Formatting of if Statements</a> 
 <a href="https://stackoverflow.com/questions/159366/is-there-a-best-coding-style-for-identations-same-line-next-line">Is there a best coding style for identations (same line, next line)?</a> 
 <a href="https://stackoverflow.com/questions/437315/best-way-to-code-stackoverflow-style-questions-tags-rollover-buttons">Best way to code stackoverflow style 'questions' / 'tags' rollover buttons</a> 
</blockquote>

<pre><code>public void Method {

}
</code></pre>

or 

<pre><code>public void Method
{

}
</code></pre>

Besides personal preference is there any benefit of one style over another? I used to swear by the second method though now use the first style for work and personal projects.

By readability I mean imagine code in those methods - if/else etc...

Does bracket placement affect readability?

翻译质量差，导致语言生硬或混乱。

没有提供实际的解决方法或示例。

解答不清晰，无法理解或解决问题。

页面排版不美观，阅读体验差。

文章

问答

视频

学习中心

腾讯云实验室

直播

竞赛

腾讯云代码分析专区

腾讯iOA零信任安全管理系统专区

腾讯云架构师技术同盟交流圈

腾讯云数据库专区

腾讯云顾问专区

腾讯云原生专区

腾讯混元专区

腾讯云TCE专区

腾讯云Lighthouse专区

腾讯云HAI专区

腾讯云Edgeone专区

腾讯云存储专区

腾讯云智能专区

腾讯轻联专区 

腾讯云开发专区

TAPD专区

腾讯轻量云游戏服专区

腾讯云最具价值专家

腾讯云架构师技术同盟

腾讯云创作之星

腾讯云开发者先锋

腾讯云代码助手

云原生构建

TAPD 敏捷项目管理

Cloud Studio

SDK中心

API中心

命令行工具

涵盖代码开发、场景应用、自动测试全流程，助你从零构建专属AI助手

一站式MCP教程库，解锁AI应用新玩法

可能的重复：public void Method {}或public void Method{}除了个人喜好之外，一种风格比另一种风格有什么好处吗？我曾经用第二种方法发誓，尽管现在我在工作和个人项目中使用了第一种风格。所谓可读性，我的意思是想象那些方法中的代码-if/etc等.

问括号的放置是否影响可读性？
EN

Stack Overflow用户

社区

活动

圈层

关于

腾讯云开发者

热门产品

热门推荐

更多推荐

问括号的放置是否影响可读性？EN