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);

static class ExtensionMethods
{
    internal static bool IsBetween(this double number,double bound1, double bound2)
    {
        return Math.Min(bound1, bound2) <= number && number <= Math.Max(bound2, bound1);
    }

    internal static bool IsBetween(this int number, double bound1, double bound2)
    {
        return Math.Min(bound1, bound2) <= number && number <= Math.Max(bound2, bound1);
    }
}

使用

double numberToBeChecked = 7;

var result = numberToBeChecked.IsBetween（100，122）;

var result = 5.IsBetween（100，120）;

var result = 8.0.IsBetween（1.2，9.6）;

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。

如果这是偶然的，你只需要一个简单的If。如果这种情况在很多地方都发生，你可能会考虑这两个:

PostSharp。在方法编译后，用“注入”代码的属性来装饰方法。我不确定，但我可以想象它可以用来做这个。

喜欢的东西:

[Between("parameter", 0, 100)]
public void Foo(int parameter)
{
}

代码合同。优点是可以在编译时通过对代码和使用代码的地方进行静态验证来检查约束。

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

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。