我喜欢这种方法。它感觉简单而不神奇，支持所有可迭代类型，并且不需要导入。

def chunk_iter(iterable, chunk_size):
it = iter(iterable)
while True:
    chunk = tuple(next(it) for _ in range(chunk_size))
    if not chunk:
        break
    yield chunk

类似于其他提案，但不完全相同，我喜欢这样做，因为它简单易读:

it = iter([1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9])
for chunk in zip(it, it, it, it):
    print chunk

>>> (1, 2, 3, 4)
>>> (5, 6, 7, 8)

这样你就不会得到最后一部分。如果你想获取(9,None, None, None)作为最后一个块，只需使用itertools中的izip_longest。

还有另一个答案，它的优点是:

1)容易理解 2)适用于任何可迭代对象，而不仅仅是序列(上面的一些答案会阻塞文件句柄) 3)不立即将数据块加载到内存 4)不会在内存中生成对同一迭代器的块长的引用列表 5)在列表的末尾没有填充填充值

话虽如此，我还没有计算它的时间，所以它可能比一些更聪明的方法慢，而且考虑到用例，一些优势可能是无关紧要的。

def chunkiter(iterable, size):
  def inneriter(first, iterator, size):
    yield first
    for _ in xrange(size - 1): 
      yield iterator.next()
  it = iter(iterable)
  while True:
    yield inneriter(it.next(), it, size)

In [2]: i = chunkiter('abcdefgh', 3)
In [3]: for ii in i:                                                
          for c in ii:
            print c,
          print ''
        ...:     
        a b c 
        d e f 
        g h 

Update: A couple of drawbacks due to the fact the inner and outer loops are pulling values from the same iterator: 1) continue doesn't work as expected in the outer loop - it just continues on to the next item rather than skipping a chunk. However, this doesn't seem like a problem as there's nothing to test in the outer loop. 2) break doesn't work as expected in the inner loop - control will wind up in the inner loop again with the next item in the iterator. To skip whole chunks, either wrap the inner iterator (ii above) in a tuple, e.g. for c in tuple(ii), or set a flag and exhaust the iterator.

下面是我的go works on lists,iter和range…懒洋洋地:

def chunker(it,size):
    rv = [] 
    for i,el in enumerate(it,1) :   
        rv.append(el)
        if i % size == 0 : 
            yield rv
            rv = []
    if rv : yield rv        

几乎变成了一句俏皮话;(

In [95]: list(chunker(range(9),2) )                                                                                                                                          
Out[95]: [[0, 1], [2, 3], [4, 5], [6, 7], [8]]

In [96]: list(chunker([1,2,3,4,5],2) )                                                                                                                                       
Out[96]: [[1, 2], [3, 4], [5]]

In [97]: list(chunker(iter(range(9)),2) )                                                                                                                                    
Out[97]: [[0, 1], [2, 3], [4, 5], [6, 7], [8]]

In [98]: list(chunker(range(9),25) )                                                                                                                                         
Out[98]: [[0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]]

In [99]: list(chunker(range(9),1) )                                                                                                                                          
Out[99]: [[0], [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]]

In [101]: %timeit list(chunker(range(101),2) )                                                                                                                               
11.3 µs ± 68.2 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100000 loops each)

似乎没有一个漂亮的方法来做到这一点。下面是一个有很多方法的页面，包括:

def split_seq(seq, size):
    newseq = []
    splitsize = 1.0/size*len(seq)
    for i in range(size):
        newseq.append(seq[int(round(i*splitsize)):int(round((i+1)*splitsize))])
    return newseq

在你的第二种方法中，我将通过这样做进入下一组4人:

ints = ints[4:]

然而，我还没有做过任何绩效评估，所以我不知道哪种方法更有效。

话虽如此，我通常会选择第一种方法。这并不漂亮，但这通常是与外部世界接触的结果。