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;
    }
}

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;
            }
        }
    }

下面是我几个月前写的一个列表拆分例程:

public static List<List<T>> Chunk<T>(
    List<T> theList,
    int chunkSize
)
{
    List<List<T>> result = theList
        .Select((x, i) => new {
            data = x,
            indexgroup = i / chunkSize
        })
        .GroupBy(x => x.indexgroup, x => x.data)
        .Select(g => new List<T>(g))
        .ToList();

    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.

我刚刚写了这个，我认为它比其他提出的解决方案更优雅一点:

/// <summary>
/// Break a list of items into chunks of a specific size
/// </summary>
public static IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> Chunk<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, int chunksize)
{
    while (source.Any())
    {
        yield return source.Take(chunksize);
        source = source.Skip(chunksize);
    }
}

完全懒惰的，没有计数或复制的:

public static class EnumerableExtensions
{

  public static IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> Split<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, int len)
  {
     if (len == 0)
        throw new ArgumentNullException();

     var enumer = source.GetEnumerator();
     while (enumer.MoveNext())
     {
        yield return Take(enumer.Current, enumer, len);
     }
  }

  private static IEnumerable<T> Take<T>(T head, IEnumerator<T> tail, int len)
  {
     while (true)
     {
        yield return head;
        if (--len == 0)
           break;
        if (tail.MoveNext())
           head = tail.Current;
        else
           break;
     }
  }
}