我会创建一个Range对象，就像这样:

public class Range<T> where T : IComparable
{
    public T InferiorBoundary{get;private set;}
    public T SuperiorBoundary{get;private set;}

    public Range(T inferiorBoundary, T superiorBoundary)
    {
        InferiorBoundary = inferiorBoundary;
        SuperiorBoundary = superiorBoundary;
    }

    public bool IsWithinBoundaries(T value){
        return InferiorBoundary.CompareTo(value) > 0 && SuperiorBoundary.CompareTo(value) < 0;
    }
}

那么你可以这样使用它:

Range<int> myRange = new Range<int>(1,999);
bool isWithinRange = myRange.IsWithinBoundaries(3);

这样你就可以在其他类型中重用它。

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。

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。

只是为了增加这里的噪音，你可以创建一个扩展方法:

public static bool IsWithin(this int value, int minimum, int maximum)
{
    return value >= minimum && value <= maximum;
}

这样你就能做…

int val = 15;

bool foo = val.IsWithin(5,20);

话虽如此，当检查本身只有一行时，这样做似乎是一件愚蠢的事情。

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;
    }
}