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!");
        }
    }
}

如果是为了验证方法参数，没有一个解决方案会抛出argumentoutofranceexception，并允许简单/适当地配置包含/排除的最小/最大值。

像这样使用

public void Start(int pos)
{
    pos.CheckRange(nameof(pos), min: 0);

    if (pos.IsInRange(max: 100, maxInclusive: false))
    {
        // ...
    }
}

我只是写出了这些漂亮的函数。它还具有对有效值没有分支(单个if)的优点。最难的部分是制作适当的异常消息。

/// <summary>
/// Returns whether specified value is in valid range.
/// </summary>
/// <typeparam name="T">The type of data to validate.</typeparam>
/// <param name="value">The value to validate.</param>
/// <param name="min">The minimum valid value.</param>
/// <param name="minInclusive">Whether the minimum value is valid.</param>
/// <param name="max">The maximum valid value.</param>
/// <param name="maxInclusive">Whether the maximum value is valid.</param>
/// <returns>Whether the value is within range.</returns>
public static bool IsInRange<T>(this T value, T? min = null, bool minInclusive = true, T? max = null, bool maxInclusive = true)
    where T : struct, IComparable<T>
{
    var minValid = min == null || (minInclusive && value.CompareTo(min.Value) >= 0) || (!minInclusive && value.CompareTo(min.Value) > 0);
    var maxValid = max == null || (maxInclusive && value.CompareTo(max.Value) <= 0) || (!maxInclusive && value.CompareTo(max.Value) < 0);
    return minValid && maxValid;
}

/// <summary>
/// Validates whether specified value is in valid range, and throws an exception if out of range.
/// </summary>
/// <typeparam name="T">The type of data to validate.</typeparam>
/// <param name="value">The value to validate.</param>
/// <param name="name">The name of the parameter.</param>
/// <param name="min">The minimum valid value.</param>
/// <param name="minInclusive">Whether the minimum value is valid.</param>
/// <param name="max">The maximum valid value.</param>
/// <param name="maxInclusive">Whether the maximum value is valid.</param>
/// <returns>The value if valid.</returns>
public static T CheckRange<T>(this T value, string name, T? min = null, bool minInclusive = true, T? max = null, bool maxInclusive = true)
where T : struct, IComparable<T>
{
    if (!value.IsInRange(min, minInclusive, max, maxInclusive))
    {
        if (min.HasValue && minInclusive && max.HasValue && maxInclusive)
        {
            var message = "{0} must be between {1} and {2}.";
            throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException(name, value, message.FormatInvariant(name, min, max));
        }
        else
        {
            var messageMin = min.HasValue ? GetOpText(true, minInclusive).FormatInvariant(min) : null;
            var messageMax = max.HasValue ? GetOpText(false, maxInclusive).FormatInvariant(max) : null;
            var message = (messageMin != null && messageMax != null) ?
                "{0} must be {1} and {2}." :
                "{0} must be {1}.";
            throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException(name, value, message.FormatInvariant(name, messageMin ?? messageMax, messageMax));
        }
    }
    return value;
}

private static string GetOpText(bool greaterThan, bool inclusive)
{
    return (greaterThan && inclusive) ? "greater than or equal to {0}" :
        greaterThan ? "greater than {0}" :
        inclusive ? "less than or equal to {0}" :
        "less than {0}";
}

public static string FormatInvariant(this string format, params object?[] args) => string.Format(CultureInfo.InvariantCulture, format, args);

if (value > 1 && value < 100)
{
    // do work
}
else
{
    // handle outside of range logic
}

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'"

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);

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。