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'"

我正在寻找一种优雅的方式来做它的边界可能被切换(即。不确定值的顺序)。

这只适用于存在?:的新版本的c#

bool ValueWithinBounds(float val, float bounds1, float bounds2)
{
    return bounds1 >= bounds2 ?
      val <= bounds1 && val >= bounds2 : 
      val <= bounds2 && val >= bounds1;
}

显然，您可以根据自己的需要更改=号。也可以用类型转换。我只需要在边界内(或等于)返回一个浮点数

您可以使用模式匹配以最优雅的方式实现这一点:

int i = 5;
if(i is (>0 and <=10))
{

}

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'"

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)