你可以使用Union

obj2 = obj1.Union(obj1).ToList();

在Java中(我认为c#或多或少是相同的):

list = new ArrayList<T>(new HashSet<T>(list))

如果你真的想改变原来的列表:

List<T> noDupes = new ArrayList<T>(new HashSet<T>(list));
list.clear();
list.addAll(noDupes);

为了保持顺序，只需将HashSet替换为LinkedHashSet。

这里有一个扩展的方法来删除相邻的副本原位。首先调用Sort()并传入相同的ic比较器。这应该比Lasse V. Karlsen的版本更有效，后者重复调用RemoveAt(导致多次块内存移动)。

public static void RemoveAdjacentDuplicates<T>(this List<T> List, IComparer<T> Comparer)
{
    int NumUnique = 0;
    for (int i = 0; i < List.Count; i++)
        if ((i == 0) || (Comparer.Compare(List[NumUnique - 1], List[i]) != 0))
            List[NumUnique++] = List[i];
    List.RemoveRange(NumUnique, List.Count - NumUnique);
}

简单地用相同类型的List初始化HashSet:

var noDupes = new HashSet<T>(withDupes);

或者，如果你想返回一个List:

var noDupsList = new HashSet<T>(withDupes).ToList();

根据删除重复，我们必须应用下面的逻辑，所以它将以快速的方式删除重复。

public class Program
{

    public static void Main(string[] arges)
    {
        List<string> cities = new List<string>() { "Chennai", "Kolkata", "Mumbai", "Mumbai","Chennai", "Delhi", "Delhi", "Delhi", "Chennai", "Kolkata", "Mumbai", "Chennai" };
        cities = RemoveDuplicate(cities);

        foreach (var city in cities)
        {
            Console.WriteLine(city);
        }
    }

    public static List<string> RemoveDuplicate(List<string> cities)
    {
        if (cities.Count < 2)
        {
            return cities;
        }

        int size = cities.Count;
        for (int i = 0; i < size; i++)
        {
            for (int j = i+1; j < size; j++)
            {
                if (cities[i] == cities[j])
                {
                    cities.RemoveAt(j);
                    size--;
                    j--;
                }
            }
        }
        return cities;
    }
}

所有的答案要么复制列表，要么创建一个新列表，要么使用慢函数，要么就是慢得令人痛苦。

据我所知，这是我所知道的最快和最便宜的方法(同时，还得到了一个非常有经验的实时物理优化程序员的支持)。

// Duplicates will be noticed after a sort O(nLogn)
list.Sort();

// Store the current and last items. Current item declaration is not really needed, and probably optimized by the compiler, but in case it's not...
int lastItem = -1;
int currItem = -1;

int size = list.Count;

// Store the index pointing to the last item we want to keep in the list
int last = size - 1;

// Travel the items from last to first O(n)
for (int i = last; i >= 0; --i)
{
    currItem = list[i];

    // If this item was the same as the previous one, we don't want it
    if (currItem == lastItem)
    {
        // Overwrite last in current place. It is a swap but we don't need the last
       list[i] = list[last];

        // Reduce the last index, we don't want that one anymore
        last--;
    }

    // A new item, we store it and continue
    else
        lastItem = currItem;
}

// We now have an unsorted list with the duplicates at the end.

// Remove the last items just once
list.RemoveRange(last + 1, size - last - 1);

// Sort again O(n logn)
list.Sort();

最终成本为:

nlogn + n + nlogn = n + 2nlogn = O(nlogn)非常漂亮。

关于RemoveRange注意事项: 由于我们不能设置列表的计数并避免使用Remove函数，我不知道这个操作的确切速度，但我猜这是最快的方法。