优雅是因为它不需要确定两个边界值中哪个先大。它也不包含分支。

public static bool InRange(float val, float a, float b)
{
    // Determine if val lies between a and b without first asking which is larger (a or b)
    return ( a <= val & val < b ) | ( b <= val & val < a );
}

Using an && expression to join two comparisons is simply the most elegant way to do this. If you try using fancy extension methods and such, you run into the question of whether to include the upper bound, the lower bound, or both. Once you start adding additional variables or changing the extension names to indicate what is included, your code becomes longer and harder to read (for the vast majority of programmers). Furthermore, tools like Resharper will warn you if your comparison doesn't make sense (number > 100 && number < 1), which they won't do if you use a method ('i.IsBetween(100, 1)').

我要做的唯一另一个评论是，如果你检查输入的意图是抛出异常，你应该考虑使用代码契约:

Contract.Requires(number > 1 && number < 100)

这比if(…)抛出new Exception(…)更优雅，如果有人试图调用您的方法而没有首先确保该数字在边界内，您甚至可以得到编译时警告。

我使用下一个“优雅”的解决方案:

using static System.Linq.Enumerable;

int x = 30;
if (Range(1,100).Contains(x))  //true

来自微软文档

using static指令适用于任何具有静态成员(或嵌套类型)的类型，即使它也具有实例成员。但是，实例成员只能通过类型实例调用。

你可以访问一个类型的静态成员，而不需要用类型名限定访问:

但这对许多人来说并不简单，因为Enumerable。Range有第一个参数start和第二个参数count。 所以这种检查可能在特定情况下有用，比如当你使用Enumerable时。范围的foreach循环，在开始之前，您想知道，如果循环将执行。

例如:

        int count = 100;
        int x = 30;

        if (!Range(1, count).Contains(x)) {
            Console.WriteLine("Do nothing!");
            return;
        }

        foreach (var i in Range(1, count)) {
            // Some job here
        }

In production code I would simply write 1 <= x && x <= 100 This is easy to understand and very readable. Starting with C#9.0 we can write x is >= 1 and <= 100 Note that we must write x only once. is introduces a pattern matching expression where and is part of the pattern. && would require us to repeat x is as in x is >= 1 && x is <= 100 Here is a clever method that reduces the number of comparisons from two to one by using some math. There is not necessarily a performance advantage in doing so, but it is elegant. The idea is that one of the two factors becomes negative if the number lies outside of the range and zero if the number is equal to one of the bounds: If the bounds are inclusive: (x - 1) * (100 - x) >= 0 or (x - min) * (max - x) >= 0 If the bounds are exclusive: (x - 1) * (100 - x) > 0 or (x - min) * (max - x) > 0

像这样的怎么样?

if (theNumber.isBetween(low, high, IntEx.Bounds.INCLUSIVE_INCLUSIVE))
{
}

扩展方法如下(已测试):

public static class IntEx
{
    public enum Bounds 
    {
        INCLUSIVE_INCLUSIVE, 
        INCLUSIVE_EXCLUSIVE, 
        EXCLUSIVE_INCLUSIVE, 
        EXCLUSIVE_EXCLUSIVE
    }

    public static bool isBetween(this int theNumber, int low, int high, Bounds boundDef)
    {
        bool result;
        switch (boundDef)
        {
            case Bounds.INCLUSIVE_INCLUSIVE:
                result = ((low <= theNumber) && (theNumber <= high));
                break;
            case Bounds.INCLUSIVE_EXCLUSIVE:
                result = ((low <= theNumber) && (theNumber < high));
                break;
            case Bounds.EXCLUSIVE_INCLUSIVE:
                result = ((low < theNumber) && (theNumber <= high));
                break;
            case Bounds.EXCLUSIVE_EXCLUSIVE:
                result = ((low < theNumber) && (theNumber < high));
                break;
            default:
                throw new System.ArgumentException("Invalid boundary definition argument");
        }
        return result;
    }
}

你的意思是?

if(number >= 1 && number <= 100)

or

bool TestRange (int numberToCheck, int bottom, int top)
{
  return (numberToCheck >= bottom && numberToCheck <= top);
}