我希望“模式”是这样的:

foreach( thing in thingpile )
{
    if( /* condition#1 */ )
    {
        foreach.markfordeleting( thing );
    }
    elseif( /* condition#2 */ )
    {
        foreach.markforkeeping( thing );
    }
} 
foreachcompleted
{
    // then the programmer's choices would be:

    // delete everything that was marked for deleting
    foreach.deletenow(thingpile); 

    // ...or... keep only things that were marked for keeping
    foreach.keepnow(thingpile);

    // ...or even... make a new list of the unmarked items
    others = foreach.unmarked(thingpile);   
}

这将使代码与程序员大脑中进行的过程保持一致。

一个简单而直接的解决方案:

在你的集合上使用一个标准的for循环，并使用RemoveAt(i)来删除元素。

我将从一个过滤掉您不想保留的元素的LINQ查询中重新分配列表。

list = list.Where(item => ...).ToList();

除非列表非常大，否则这样做应该不会有明显的性能问题。

这里还有一个没有提到的选项。

如果您不介意在项目的某个地方添加一些代码，您可以向List添加和扩展，以返回反向遍历列表的类的实例。

你可以这样使用它:

foreach (var elem in list.AsReverse())
{
    //Do stuff with elem
    //list.Remove(elem); //Delete it if you want
}

这是什么扩展看起来像:

public static class ReverseListExtension
{
    public static ReverseList<T> AsReverse<T>(this List<T> list) => new ReverseList<T>(list);

    public class ReverseList<T> : IEnumerable
    {
        List<T> list;
        public ReverseList(List<T> list){ this.list = list; }

        public IEnumerator GetEnumerator()
        {
            for (int i = list.Count - 1; i >= 0; i--)
                yield return list[i];
            yield break;
        }
    }
}

这基本上就是没有分配的list.Reverse()。

就像一些人提到的那样，你仍然会有一个一个地删除元素的缺点，如果你的列表非常长，这里的一些选项会更好。但我认为有些人希望list.Reverse()的简单性，没有内存开销。

Using Remove or RemoveAt on a list while iterating over that list has intentionally been made difficult, because it is almost always the wrong thing to do. You might be able to get it working with some clever trick, but it would be extremely slow. Every time you call Remove it has to scan through the entire list to find the element you want to remove. Every time you call RemoveAt it has to move subsequent elements 1 position to the left. As such, any solution using Remove or RemoveAt, would require quadratic time, O(n²).

如果可以，使用RemoveAll。否则，下面的模式将在线性时间O(n)内就地过滤列表。

// Create a list to be filtered
IList<int> elements = new List<int>(new int[] {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10});
// Filter the list
int kept = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < elements.Count; i++) {
    // Test whether this is an element that we want to keep.
    if (elements[i] % 3 > 0) {
        // Add it to the list of kept elements.
        elements[kept] = elements[i];
        kept++;
    }
}
// Unfortunately IList has no Resize method. So instead we
// remove the last element of the list until: elements.Count == kept.
while (kept < elements.Count) elements.RemoveAt(elements.Count-1);

在c#中，一个简单的方法是标记你想要删除的，然后创建一个新的列表来迭代…

foreach(var item in list.ToList()){if(item.Delete) list.Remove(item);}  

或者更简单的使用linq....

list.RemoveAll(p=>p.Delete);

但是值得考虑的是，如果其他任务或线程在你忙着删除的同时访问同一个列表，那么可以使用ConcurrentList来代替。