通过一些扩展方法的滥用，我们可以得到以下“优雅”的解决方案:

using System;

namespace Elegant {
    public class Range {
        public int Lower { get; set; }
        public int Upper { get; set; }
    }

    public static class Ext {
        public static Range To(this int lower, int upper) {
            return new Range { Lower = lower, Upper = upper };
        }

        public static bool In(this int n, Range r) {
            return n >= r.Lower && n <= r.Upper;
        }
    }

    class Program {
        static void Main() {
            int x = 55;
            if (x.In(1.To(100)))
                Console.WriteLine("it's in range! elegantly!");
        }
    }
}

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。

因为所有其他答案都不是我发明的，这里只是我的实现:

public enum Range
{
    /// <summary>
    /// A range that contains all values greater than start and less than end.
    /// </summary>
    Open,
    /// <summary>
    /// A range that contains all values greater than or equal to start and less than or equal to end.
    /// </summary>
    Closed,
    /// <summary>
    /// A range that contains all values greater than or equal to start and less than end.
    /// </summary>
    OpenClosed,
    /// <summary>
    /// A range that contains all values greater than start and less than or equal to end.
    /// </summary>
    ClosedOpen
}

public static class RangeExtensions
{
    /// <summary>
    /// Checks if a value is within a range that contains all values greater than start and less than or equal to end.
    /// </summary>
    /// <param name="value">The value that should be checked.</param>
    /// <param name="start">The first value of the range to be checked.</param>
    /// <param name="end">The last value of the range to be checked.</param>
    /// <returns><c>True</c> if the value is greater than start and less than or equal to end, otherwise <c>false</c>.</returns>
    public static bool IsWithin<T>(this T value, T start, T end) where T : IComparable<T>
    {
        return IsWithin(value, start, end, Range.ClosedOpen);
    }

    /// <summary>
    /// Checks if a value is within the given range.
    /// </summary>
    /// <param name="value">The value that should be checked.</param>
    /// <param name="start">The first value of the range to be checked.</param>
    /// <param name="end">The last value of the range to be checked.</param>
    /// <param name="range">The kind of range that should be checked. Depending on the given kind of range the start end end value are either inclusive or exclusive.</param>
    /// <returns><c>True</c> if the value is within the given range, otherwise <c>false</c>.</returns>
    public static bool IsWithin<T>(this T value, T start, T end, Range range) where T : IComparable<T>
    {
        if (value == null)
            throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(value));

        if (start == null)
            throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(start));

        if (end == null)
            throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(end));

        switch (range)
        {
            case Range.Open:
                return value.CompareTo(start) > 0
                       && value.CompareTo(end) < 0;
            case Range.Closed:
                return value.CompareTo(start) >= 0
                       && value.CompareTo(end) <= 0;
            case Range.OpenClosed:
                return value.CompareTo(start) > 0
                       && value.CompareTo(end) <= 0;
            case Range.ClosedOpen:
                return value.CompareTo(start) >= 0
                       && value.CompareTo(end) < 0;
            default:
                throw new ArgumentException($"Unknown parameter value {range}.", nameof(range));
        }
    }
}

然后你可以这样使用它:

var value = 5;
var start = 1;
var end = 10;

var result = value.IsWithin(start, end, Range.Closed);

有很多选择:

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

实际上，基本的，如果更优雅的话，可以在第一张支票中用倒序写:

if (1 <= x && x <= 100)   //true

此外，查看这篇SO帖子的正则表达式选项。

注:

LINQ solution is strictly for style points - since Contains iterates over all items its complexity is O(range_size) and not O(1) normally expected from a range check. More generic version for other ranges (notice that second argument is count, not end): if (Enumerable.Range(start, end - start + 1).Contains(x) There is temptation to write if solution without && like 1 <= x <= 100 - that look really elegant, but in C# leads to a syntax error "Operator '<=' cannot be applied to operands of type 'bool' and 'int'"

就像其他人说的，使用简单的if。

你应该考虑一下顺序。

e.g

1 <= x && x <= 100

容易读吗

x >= 1 && x <= 100

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