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;
}

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)

使用内置的Range结构体(c# 8+)，我们可以创建一个扩展方法来检查索引是否在原始范围内。

public static bool IsInRangeOf(this Range range, Index index)
{
   return index.Value >= range.Start.Value && index.Value < range.End.Value;
}

由于Index覆盖隐式操作符，因此可以传递int型而不是Index结构体。

var range = new Range(1, 10);
var isInRange = range.IsInRangeOf(1); // true, 1..10 is inclusive min range index(1)
var isInRange = range.IsInRangeOf(10); // false, 1..10 exclusive on max range index (10).
var isInRange = range.IsInRangeOf(100); // false

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

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。

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;
    }
}