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
        }

我建议:

public static bool IsWithin<T>(this T value, T minimum, T maximum) where T : IComparable<T> {
    if (value.CompareTo(minimum) < 0)
       return false;
    if (value.CompareTo(maximum) > 0)
       return false;
    return true;
}

例子:

45.IsWithin(32, 89)
true
87.2.IsWithin(87.1, 87.15)
false
87.2.IsWithin(87.1, 87.25)
true

当然还有变量:

myvalue.IsWithin(min, max)

它易于阅读(接近人类语言)，并适用于任何可比类型(整数，双精度，自定义类型……)。

让代码易于阅读是很重要的，因为开发人员不会浪费“大脑周期”去理解它。在长时间的编码过程中，浪费的大脑周期会使开发人员更早地疲劳并容易出现错误。

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;
    }
}

我不知道，但我用这个方法:

    public static Boolean isInRange(this Decimal dec, Decimal min, Decimal max, bool includesMin = true, bool includesMax = true ) {

    return (includesMin ? (dec >= min) : (dec > min)) && (includesMax ? (dec <= max) : (dec < max));
}

这是我使用它的方式:

    [TestMethod]
    public void IsIntoTheRange()
    {
        decimal dec = 54;

        Boolean result = false;

        result = dec.isInRange(50, 60); //result = True
        Assert.IsTrue(result);

        result = dec.isInRange(55, 60); //result = False
        Assert.IsFalse(result);

        result = dec.isInRange(54, 60); //result = True
        Assert.IsTrue(result);

        result = dec.isInRange(54, 60, false); //result = False
        Assert.IsFalse(result);

        result = dec.isInRange(32, 54, false, false);//result = False
        Assert.IsFalse(result);

        result = dec.isInRange(32, 54, false);//result = True
        Assert.IsTrue(result);
    }

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;
}