下面是一个高效的Shuffler，它返回一个字节数组的打乱值。它从来不会超过需要的次数。它可以从之前停止的地方重新启动。我的实际实现(未显示)是一个MEF组件，它允许用户指定替换洗牌器。

    public byte[] Shuffle(byte[] array, int start, int count)
    {
        int n = array.Length - start;
        byte[] shuffled = new byte[count];
        for(int i = 0; i < count; i++, start++)
        {
            int k = UniformRandomGenerator.Next(n--) + start;
            shuffled[i] = array[k];
            array[k] = array[start];
            array[start] = shuffled[i];
        }
        return shuffled;
    }

`

编辑 RemoveAt是我以前版本的一个弱点。这个解决方案克服了这个问题。

public static IEnumerable<T> Shuffle<T>(
        this IEnumerable<T> source,
        Random generator = null)
{
    if (generator == null)
    {
        generator = new Random();
    }

    var elements = source.ToArray();
    for (var i = elements.Length - 1; i >= 0; i--)
    {
        var swapIndex = generator.Next(i + 1);
        yield return elements[swapIndex];
        elements[swapIndex] = elements[i];
    }
}

请注意可选的Random生成器，如果Random的基本框架实现不是线程安全的，或者加密性不够强，您可以将您的实现注入到操作中。

在这个答案中可以找到线程安全的加密强随机实现的合适实现。

这里有一个想法，以一种(希望)有效的方式扩展IList。

public static IEnumerable<T> Shuffle<T>(this IList<T> list)
{
    var choices = Enumerable.Range(0, list.Count).ToList();
    var rng = new Random();
    for(int n = choices.Count; n > 1; n--)
    {
        int k = rng.Next(n);
        yield return list[choices[k]];
        choices.RemoveAt(k);
    }

    yield return list[choices[0]];
}

使用基于Fisher-Yates Shuffle的扩展方法Shuffle任意(I)List:

private static Random rng = new Random();  

public static void Shuffle<T>(this IList<T> list)  
{  
    int n = list.Count;  
    while (n > 1) {  
        n--;  
        int k = rng.Next(n + 1);  
        T value = list[k];  
        list[k] = list[n];  
        list[n] = value;  
    }  
}

用法:

List<Product> products = GetProducts();
products.Shuffle();

上面的代码使用了备受批评的系统。选择交换候选的随机方法。它速度很快，但并不像它应该的那样随机。如果你需要更好的随机质量，可以使用System.Security.Cryptography中的随机数生成器，如下所示:

using System.Security.Cryptography;
...
public static void Shuffle<T>(this IList<T> list)
{
    RNGCryptoServiceProvider provider = new RNGCryptoServiceProvider();
    int n = list.Count;
    while (n > 1)
    {
        byte[] box = new byte[1];
        do provider.GetBytes(box);
        while (!(box[0] < n * (Byte.MaxValue / n)));
        int k = (box[0] % n);
        n--;
        T value = list[k];
        list[k] = list[n];
        list[n] = value;
    }
}

一个简单的比较可以在这个博客(WayBack Machine)上找到。

Edit: Since writing this answer a couple years back, many people have commented or written to me, to point out the big silly flaw in my comparison. They are of course right. There's nothing wrong with System.Random if it's used in the way it was intended. In my first example above, I instantiate the rng variable inside of the Shuffle method, which is asking for trouble if the method is going to be called repeatedly. Below is a fixed, full example based on a really useful comment received today from @weston here on SO.

Program.cs:

using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Threading;

namespace SimpleLottery
{
  class Program
  {
    private static void Main(string[] args)
    {
      var numbers = new List<int>(Enumerable.Range(1, 75));
      numbers.Shuffle();
      Console.WriteLine("The winning numbers are: {0}", string.Join(",  ", numbers.GetRange(0, 5)));
    }
  }

  public static class ThreadSafeRandom
  {
      [ThreadStatic] private static Random Local;

      public static Random ThisThreadsRandom
      {
          get { return Local ?? (Local = new Random(unchecked(Environment.TickCount * 31 + Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId))); }
      }
  }

  static class MyExtensions
  {
    public static void Shuffle<T>(this IList<T> list)
    {
      int n = list.Count;
      while (n > 1)
      {
        n--;
        int k = ThreadSafeRandom.ThisThreadsRandom.Next(n + 1);
        T value = list[k];
        list[k] = list[n];
        list[n] = value;
      }
    }
  }
}

I'm bit surprised by all the clunky versions of this simple algorithm here. Fisher-Yates (or Knuth shuffle) is bit tricky but very compact. Why is it tricky? Because your need to pay attention to whether your random number generator r(a,b) returns value where b is inclusive or exclusive. I've also edited Wikipedia description so people don't blindly follow pseudocode there and create hard to detect bugs. For .Net, Random.Next(a,b) returns number exclusive of b so without further ado, here's how it can be implemented in C#/.Net:

public static void Shuffle<T>(this IList<T> list, Random rnd)
{
    for(var i=list.Count; i > 0; i--)
        list.Swap(0, rnd.Next(0, i));
}

public static void Swap<T>(this IList<T> list, int i, int j)
{
    var temp = list[i];
    list[i] = list[j];
    list[j] = temp;
}

试试这段代码。

您可以使用这个简单的扩展方法来实现这一点

public static class IEnumerableExtensions
{

    public static IEnumerable<t> Randomize<t>(this IEnumerable<t> target)
    {
        Random r = new Random();

        return target.OrderBy(x=>(r.Next()));
    }        
}

你可以通过下面的步骤来使用它

// use this on any collection that implements IEnumerable!
// List, Array, HashSet, Collection, etc

List<string> myList = new List<string> { "hello", "random", "world", "foo", "bar", "bat", "baz" };

foreach (string s in myList.Randomize())
{
    Console.WriteLine(s);
}

    List<T> OriginalList = new List<T>();
    List<T> TempList = new List<T>();
    Random random = new Random();
    int length = OriginalList.Count;
    int TempIndex = 0;

    while (length > 0) {
        TempIndex = random.Next(0, length);  // get random value between 0 and original length
        TempList.Add(OriginalList[TempIndex]); // add to temp list
        OriginalList.RemoveAt(TempIndex); // remove from original list
        length = OriginalList.Count;  // get new list <T> length.
    }

    OriginalList = new List<T>();
    OriginalList = TempList; // copy all items from temp list to original list.