对于任何对打包/维护解决方案感兴趣的人来说，MoreLINQ库提供了符合您所请求行为的批处理扩展方法:

IEnumerable<char> source = "Example string";
IEnumerable<IEnumerable<char>> chunksOfThreeChars = source.Batch(3);

批处理实现类似于Cameron MacFarland的答案，在返回之前添加了用于转换块/批处理的重载，并且性能相当好。

只是说说我的意见。如果你想要“桶”列表(从左到右可视化)，你可以做以下事情:

 public static List<List<T>> Buckets<T>(this List<T> source, int numberOfBuckets)
    {
        List<List<T>> result = new List<List<T>>();
        for (int i = 0; i < numberOfBuckets; i++)
        {
            result.Add(new List<T>());
        }

        int count = 0;
        while (count < source.Count())
        {
            var mod = count % numberOfBuckets;
            result[mod].Add(source[count]);
            count++;
        }
        return result;
    }

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.

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。

我发现这个小片段做得很好。

public static IEnumerable<List<T>> Chunked<T>(this List<T> source, int chunkSize)
{
    var offset = 0;

    while (offset < source.Count)
    {
        yield return source.GetRange(offset, Math.Min(source.Count - offset, chunkSize));
        offset += chunkSize;
    }
}

旧代码，但这是我一直在使用的:

    public static IEnumerable<List<T>> InSetsOf<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, int max)
    {
        var toReturn = new List<T>(max);
        foreach (var item in source)
        {
            toReturn.Add(item);
            if (toReturn.Count == max)
            {
                yield return toReturn;
                toReturn = new List<T>(max);
            }
        }
        if (toReturn.Any())
        {
            yield return toReturn;
        }
    }