In C, if time efficiency is crucial and integer overflows will wrap, one could do if ((unsigned)(value-min) <= (max-min)) .... If 'max' and 'min' are independent variables, the extra subtraction for (max-min) will waste time, but if that expression can be precomputed at compile time, or if it can be computed once at run-time to test many numbers against the same range, the above expression may be computed efficiently even in the case where the value is within range (if a large fraction of values will be below the valid range, it may be faster to use if ((value >= min) && (value <= max)) ... because it will exit early if value is less than min).

不过，在使用这样的实现之前，请先对目标机器进行基准测试。在某些处理器上，由两部分组成的表达式可能在所有情况下都更快，因为两个比较可能是独立完成的，而在减法和比较方法中，减法必须在比较执行之前完成。

新花样的老最爱:

public bool IsWithinRange(int number, int topOfRange, int bottomOfRange, bool includeBoundaries) {
    if (includeBoundaries)
        return number <= topOfRange && number >= bottomOfRange;
    return number < topOfRange && number > bottomOfRange;
}

编辑:提供了新的答案。 当我写这个问题的第一个答案时，我刚刚开始使用c#，事后我意识到我的“解决方案”是幼稚和低效的。

我最初的回答是: 我会选择更简单的版本:

' if(Enumerable.Range(1100).Contains(intInQuestion)){…DoStuff;} '

更好的方法

因为我还没有看到任何其他更有效的解决方案(至少根据我的测试)，我将再试一次。

新的和更好的方法，也适用于负范围:

// Returns true if x is in range [min..max], else false 
bool inRange(int x, int min=1, int max=100) => ((x - max)*(x - min) <= 0);

这可以用于正负范围，并且默认为

1 . . 100(包括)并使用x作为数字来检查，然后是由min和max定义的可选范围。

为好的措施添加例子

示例1:

// Returns true if x is in range [min..max], else false 
bool inRange(int x, int min=1, int max=100) => ((x - max)*(x - min) <= 0);

Console.WriteLine(inRange(25));
Console.WriteLine(inRange(1));
Console.WriteLine(inRange(100));
Console.WriteLine(inRange(25, 30, 150));
Console.WriteLine(inRange(-25, -50, 0));

返回:

True
True
True
False
True

示例2: 使用100000个1到150之间的随机整数的列表

// Returns true if x is in range [min..max], else false 
bool inRange(int x, int min=1, int max=100) => ((x - max)*(x - min) <= 0);

// Generate 100000 ints between 1 and 150
var intsToCheck = new List<int>();
var randGen = new Random();
for(int i = 0; i < 100000; ++i){
    intsToCheck.Add(randGen.Next(150) + 1);
}

var counter = 0;
foreach(int n in intsToCheck) {
    if(inRange(n)) ++counter;
}

Console.WriteLine("{0} ints found in range 1..100", counter);

返回:

66660 ints found in range 1..100

Execution Time: 0.016 second(s)

如果您关心@Daap对已接受答案的注释，并且只能传递一次值，则可以尝试以下方法之一

bool TestRangeDistance (int numberToCheck, int bottom, int distance)
{
  return (numberToCheck >= bottom && numberToCheck <= bottom+distance);
}

//var t = TestRangeDistance(10, somelist.Count()-5, 10);

or

bool TestRangeMargin (int numberToCheck, int target, int margin)
{
  return (numberToCheck >= target-margin && numberToCheck <= target+margin);
}

//var t = TestRangeMargin(10, somelist.Count(), 5);

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 );
}

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;
    }
}