Rot-X

[Bman]

 using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Text;
 class RotX
 {
     public String Rot(String Text, int Mod)
     {
         Char[] Rotten = Text.ToCharArray();
         String Return = String.Empty;
         foreach (Char Old in Rotten)
         {
             int Grandmother = (int)Old;
             if (Grandmother == ' ')
             {
                 Return += " ";
             }
             else if (Grandmother >= 'a' && Grandmother <= 'm')
             {
                 Return += Convert.ToChar(Grandmother + Mod);
             }
             else if (Grandmother >= 'm' && Grandmother <= 'z')
             {
                 Return += Convert.ToChar(Grandmother - Mod);
             }
             else if (Grandmother >= 'M' && Grandmother <= 'Z')
             {
                 Return += Convert.ToChar(Grandmother - Mod);
             }
             else if (Grandmother >= 'A' && Grandmother <= 'M')
             {
                 Return += Convert.ToChar(Grandmother + Mod);
             }
         }
         return Return;
     }
 } 
  

RotX Rot = new RotX();
Rot.Rot(Text,Mod);

I coded this out of boredom, and I'm having a shitload of fun messing with this

[Chris]

 using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Text;
class RotX
{
    public String Rot(String Text, int Mod)
    {
        String Return = String.Empty;
        for (Int32 i = 0; i < Text.Length; i++)
        {
            Return += ((Text[i] >= 'a' && Text[i] <= 'm') || (Text[i] >= 'A' && Text[i] <= 'M')) ? (Char)((Int32)Text[i] + Mod) : (((Text[i] >= 'm' && Text[i] <= 'z') || (Text[i] >= 'M' && Text[i] <= 'Z')) ? (Char)((Int32)Text[i] - Mod) : (Char)Text[i]);
        }
        return Return;
    }
} 
  

Same code;
Removes use of Convert class (Costly for no reason.) Removed unneeded if's.

[Artificial]

Don't listen to Chris. It's bad practice to use long winded ternary statements within long winded ternary statements

Best practice in your example would have been to use a switch statement.

[Chris]

A switch statement for what is 52 possible cases? GLuck, unless there is a method to have a case that covers a range of values, in which...mkay didn't know there was one.

[MattSmith]

Yea alex is partially correct.

Dont do what chris did, its over complicated for no reason. In C# the visual studio compiler will optimize your code for you. No need for you to be all confused with all the ternary.

Secondly, you cant put something like this in a switch unless you make the switch all weird and stuff if you know what i mean. The reason you cant is because, for example:

 switch ((int)Old)
            {
                case (Int)Old >= 'a' && (Int)Old <= 'm':
                    Return += Convert.ToChar(Grandmother + Mod);
                    break;

                default:
                    Return += " ";
                    break;
             } 
  

You cant compare a bool ( the first case statement ) to an Int ((int)old), you will get an error. Though it is possible to put it in a switch, its more work for no real reason.

[Bman]

Thanks for the feedback I do see what chris has done is overly complicated, I just took the simple way and made an if statement. Thanks, all of you!

[Chris]

Thanks for the feedback I do see what chris has done is overly complicated, I just took the simple way and made an if statement. Thanks, all of you!

Even if you extract what I did, you only needed 2 ifs. Not 4.

[Bman]

Even if you extract what I did, you only needed 2 ifs. Not 4.

I know. I could use a logical or statement