You could use the String.IndexOf Method and pass StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase as the type of search to use:
string title = "STRING";
bool contains = title.IndexOf("string", StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase) >= 0;
Even better is defining a new extension method for string:
public static class StringExtensions
{
public static bool Contains(this string source, string toCheck, StringComparison comp)
{
return source?.IndexOf(toCheck, comp) >= 0;
}
}
Note, that null propagation ?. is available since C# 6.0 (VS 2015), for older versions use
if (source == null) return false;
return source.IndexOf(toCheck, comp) >= 0;
USAGE:
string title = "STRING";
bool contains = title.Contains("string", StringComparison.OrdinalIgnoreCase);
Contrary to the answers here, you DON'T need to worry about encoding if the bytes don't need to be interpreted!
Like you mentioned, your goal is, simply, to "get what bytes the string has been stored in".
(And, of course, to be able to re-construct the string from the bytes.)
For those goals, I honestly do not understand why people keep telling you that you need the encodings. You certainly do NOT need to worry about encodings for this.
Just do this instead:
static byte[] GetBytes(string str)
{
byte[] bytes = new byte[str.Length * sizeof(char)];
System.Buffer.BlockCopy(str.ToCharArray(), 0, bytes, 0, bytes.Length);
return bytes;
}
// Do NOT use on arbitrary bytes; only use on GetBytes's output on the SAME system
static string GetString(byte[] bytes)
{
char[] chars = new char[bytes.Length / sizeof(char)];
System.Buffer.BlockCopy(bytes, 0, chars, 0, bytes.Length);
return new string(chars);
}
As long as your program (or other programs) don't try to interpret the bytes somehow, which you obviously didn't mention you intend to do, then there is nothing wrong with this approach! Worrying about encodings just makes your life more complicated for no real reason.
Additional benefit to this approach: It doesn't matter if the string contains invalid characters, because you can still get the data and reconstruct the original string anyway!
It will be encoded and decoded just the same, because you are just looking at the bytes.
If you used a specific encoding, though, it would've given you trouble with encoding/decoding invalid characters.
Best Answer
No hostnames cannot contain a dot (reference Wikipedia and RFC 952 (see "ASSUMPTIONS") and RFC 1123). It is the delimiter between the hostname and the domainname. So you can simply do
(With proper error checking of course, for the case that "fullName" is not actually a fullname).