从列表中删除一个项的成本与后面要删除的项的数量成正比。在前半部分的条目符合删除条件的情况下，任何基于单独删除条目的方法最终都将不得不执行大约N*N/4个条目复制操作，如果列表很大，这可能会非常昂贵。

A faster approach is to scan through the list to find the first item to be removed (if any), and then from that point forward copy each item which should be retained to the spot where it belongs. Once this is done, if R items should be retained, the first R items in the list will be those R items, and all of the items requiring deletion will be at the end. If those items are deleted in reverse order, the system won't end up having to copy any of them, so if the list had N items of which R items, including all of the first F, were retained, it will be necessary to copy R-F items, and shrink the list by one item N-R times. All linear time.

在遍历列表时从列表中删除项的最佳方法是使用RemoveAll()。但是人们编写的主要问题是他们必须在循环中做一些复杂的事情和/或有复杂的比较情况。

解决方案是仍然使用RemoveAll()，但使用以下符号:

var list = new List<int>(Enumerable.Range(1, 10));
list.RemoveAll(item => 
{
    // Do some complex operations here
    // Or even some operations on the items
    SomeFunction(item);
    // In the end return true if the item is to be removed. False otherwise
    return item > 5;
});

我发现自己遇到了类似的情况，我必须删除给定List<T>中的每n个元素。

for (int i = 0, j = 0, n = 3; i < list.Count; i++)
{
    if ((j + 1) % n == 0) //Check current iteration is at the nth interval
    {
        list.RemoveAt(i);
        j++; //This extra addition is necessary. Without it j will wrap
             //down to zero, which will throw off our index.
    }
    j++; //This will always advance the j counter
}

从列表中删除一个项的成本与后面要删除的项的数量成正比。在前半部分的条目符合删除条件的情况下，任何基于单独删除条目的方法最终都将不得不执行大约N*N/4个条目复制操作，如果列表很大，这可能会非常昂贵。

A faster approach is to scan through the list to find the first item to be removed (if any), and then from that point forward copy each item which should be retained to the spot where it belongs. Once this is done, if R items should be retained, the first R items in the list will be those R items, and all of the items requiring deletion will be at the end. If those items are deleted in reverse order, the system won't end up having to copy any of them, so if the list had N items of which R items, including all of the first F, were retained, it will be necessary to copy R-F items, and shrink the list by one item N-R times. All linear time.

选择您确实需要的元素，而不是试图删除您不想要的元素。这比删除元素要容易得多(通常也更有效)。

var newSequence = (from el in list
                   where el.Something || el.AnotherThing < 0
                   select el);

我想把这篇评论作为对Michael Dillon下面评论的回应，但它太长了，可能在我的回答中有用:

就我个人而言，我从来不会一个接一个地删除项，如果你确实需要删除，那么调用RemoveAll，它接受一个谓词，只重新排列一次内部数组，而remove则是一个数组。为您删除的每个元素复制操作。RemoveAll大大提高了效率。

当你在一个列表上向后迭代时，你已经有了你想要删除的元素的索引，所以调用RemoveAt会更有效，因为remove首先遍历列表来找到你想要删除的元素的索引，但你已经知道那个索引。

总而言之，我不认为有任何理由在for循环中调用Remove。理想情况下，如果可能的话，使用上面的代码根据需要从列表中输入元素，这样就根本不需要创建第二个数据结构。

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。