我们可以改进@JaredPar的解决方案来做真正的惰性求值。我们使用GroupAdjacentBy方法生成一组具有相同键的连续元素:

sequence
.Select((x, i) => new { Value = x, Index = i })
.GroupAdjacentBy(x=>x.Index/3)
.Select(g=>g.Select(x=>x.Value))

因为基团是一个接一个地产生的，所以这个解决方案对长序列或无限序列有效。

下面这个解是我能想到的最紧凑的解是O(n)

public static IEnumerable<T[]> Chunk<T>(IEnumerable<T> source, int chunksize)
{
    var list = source as IList<T> ?? source.ToList();
    for (int start = 0; start < list.Count; start += chunksize)
    {
        T[] chunk = new T[Math.Min(chunksize, list.Count - start)];
        for (int i = 0; i < chunk.Length; i++)
            chunk[i] = list[start + i];

        yield return chunk;
    }
}

我们发现David B的解决方案效果最好。但我们把它改成了一个更普遍的解决方案:

list.GroupBy(item => item.SomeProperty) 
   .Select(group => new List<T>(group)) 
   .ToArray();

好吧，以下是我的看法:

完全懒惰:工作在无限枚举上 没有中间复制/缓冲 O(n)执行时间 当内部序列仅被部分消耗时也适用

public static IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> Chunks<T>(this IEnumerable<T> enumerable, int chunkSize) { if (chunkSize < 1) throw new ArgumentException("chunkSize must be positive"); using (var e = enumerable.GetEnumerator()) while (e.MoveNext()) { var remaining = chunkSize; // elements remaining in the current chunk var innerMoveNext = new Func<bool>(() => --remaining > 0 && e.MoveNext()); yield return e.GetChunk(innerMoveNext); while (innerMoveNext()) {/* discard elements skipped by inner iterator */} } } private static IEnumerable<T> GetChunk<T>(this IEnumerator<T> e, Func<bool> innerMoveNext) { do yield return e.Current; while (innerMoveNext()); } Example Usage var src = new [] {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6}; var c3 = src.Chunks(3); // {{1, 2, 3}, {4, 5, 6}}; var c4 = src.Chunks(4); // {{1, 2, 3, 4}, {5, 6}}; var sum = c3.Select(c => c.Sum()); // {6, 15} var count = c3.Count(); // 2 var take2 = c3.Select(c => c.Take(2)); // {{1, 2}, {4, 5}} Explanations The code works by nesting two yield based iterators. The outer iterator must keep track of how many elements have been effectively consumed by the inner (chunk) iterator. This is done by closing over remaining with innerMoveNext(). Unconsumed elements of a chunk are discarded before the next chunk is yielded by the outer iterator. This is necessary because otherwise you get inconsistent results, when the inner enumerables are not (completely) consumed (e.g. c3.Count() would return 6). Note: The answer has been updated to address the shortcomings pointed out by @aolszowka.

public static List<List<T>> GetSplitItemsList<T>(List<T> originalItemsList, short number)
    {
        var listGroup = new List<List<T>>();
        int j = number;
        for (int i = 0; i < originalItemsList.Count; i += number)
        {
            var cList = originalItemsList.Take(j).Skip(i).ToList();
            j += number;
            listGroup.Add(cList);
        }
        return listGroup;
    }

这是一个老问题，但这是我最后得出的结论;它只枚举可枚举对象一次，但是为每个分区创建列表。当调用ToArray()时，它不会像某些实现那样遭受意外行为:

    public static IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> Partition<T>(IEnumerable<T> source, int chunkSize)
    {
        if (source == null)
        {
            throw new ArgumentNullException("source");
        }

        if (chunkSize < 1)
        {
            throw new ArgumentException("Invalid chunkSize: " + chunkSize);
        }

        using (IEnumerator<T> sourceEnumerator = source.GetEnumerator())
        {
            IList<T> currentChunk = new List<T>();
            while (sourceEnumerator.MoveNext())
            {
                currentChunk.Add(sourceEnumerator.Current);
                if (currentChunk.Count == chunkSize)
                {
                    yield return currentChunk;
                    currentChunk = new List<T>();
                }
            }

            if (currentChunk.Any())
            {
                yield return currentChunk;
            }
        }
    }