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.

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.

foreach(var item in list.ToList())

{

if(item.Delete) list.Remove(item);

}

只需从第一个列表创建一个全新的列表。我说“简单”而不是“正确”，因为创建一个全新的列表可能比之前的方法具有更高的性能(我没有费心进行任何基准测试)。我通常更喜欢这种模式，它在克服Linq-To-Entities限制方面也很有用。

for(i = list.Count()-1;i>=0;i--)

{

item=list[i];

if (item.Delete) list.Remove(item);

}

这种方法使用普通的For循环向后遍历列表。如果集合的大小发生了变化，那么向前执行这个操作可能会有问题，但是向后执行应该总是安全的。

For循环是一个不好的构造。

使用时

var numbers = new List<int>(Enumerable.Range(1, 3));

while (numbers.Count > 0)
{
    numbers.RemoveAt(0);
}

但是，如果你一定要用for

var numbers = new List<int>(Enumerable.Range(1, 3));

for (; numbers.Count > 0;)
{
    numbers.RemoveAt(0);
}

或者,这个:

public static class Extensions
{

    public static IList<T> Remove<T>(
        this IList<T> numbers,
        Func<T, bool> predicate)
    {
        numbers.ForEachBackwards(predicate, (n, index) => numbers.RemoveAt(index));
        return numbers;
    }

    public static void ForEachBackwards<T>(
        this IList<T> numbers,
        Func<T, bool> predicate,
        Action<T, int> action)
    {
        for (var i = numbers.Count - 1; i >= 0; i--)
        {
            if (predicate(numbers[i]))
            {
                action(numbers[i], i);
            }
        }
    }
}

用法:

var numbers = new List<int>(Enumerable.Range(1, 10)).Remove((n) => n > 5);

然而，LINQ已经有RemoveAll()来做这件事

var numbers = new List<int>(Enumerable.Range(1, 10));
numbers.RemoveAll((n) => n > 5);

最后，你最好使用LINQ的Where()来过滤和创建一个新列表，而不是改变现有的列表。不变性通常是好的。

var numbers = new List<int>(Enumerable.Range(1, 10))
    .Where((n) => n <= 5)
    .ToList();

在泛型列表上使用ToArray()可以在泛型列表上执行Remove(item):

        List<String> strings = new List<string>() { "a", "b", "c", "d" };
        foreach (string s in strings.ToArray())
        {
            if (s == "b")
                strings.Remove(s);
        }