Rot-X

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

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;

    }

}[/i][/i][/i][/i][/i][/i][/i][/i][/i][/i][/i]

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

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.

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.

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.

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!

Asydix wrote:

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.

Chris wrote:

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

I know. I could use a logical or statement