>>>Could you reformat it into a switch statement?
>>>
>>>Bill
>>>
>>
>>How about this case - is there a way to simplify? (In VFP it's case expression):
>>
>>

>> Boolean isRedemptionValid = row.Field<Boolean>("IsRedemptionValid"),
>>                        isDateValid = row.Field<Boolean>("IsDateValid"),
>>                        isTimeValid = row.Field<Boolean>("IsTimeValid"),
>>                        isDowValid = row.Field<Boolean>("IsDowValid");
>>
>>                    if (isRedemptionValid && isDateValid && isTimeValid && isDowValid)
>>                        {
>>                            availability = "Available for Redemption";
>>                        }
>>                    else
>>                        if (!isRedemptionValid)
>>                        {
>>                            availability = "Not enough number of uses";
>>                        }
>>                        else
>>                            if (!isDateValid)
>>                            {
>>                                availability = "Not available in the date range";
>>                            }
>>                            else
>>                                if (!isTimeValid)
>>                                {
>>                                    availability = "Not available in the time range";
>>                                }
>>                                else
>>                                {
>>                                    availability = "Not available on that day of the week";
>>                                }

>
>Questions : Do you really want to abort the checks after the first 'fail' ?
>If 'yes' then I'd put it in a separate method with multiple returns (although I know there are those who religiously insist on one exit point :-})
>If 'no' then something based on Bill's approach (but with a string builder)

I think I want to return just the main reason. I've been thinking that I probably should just return this info as a column using case in T-SQL. Since this information is coming from a stored procedure, I see no problem adding an extra column right away.

I'll probably go with that route, Craig's suggestion made me think about it yesterday.