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;
     }
  }
}

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.

如果列表的类型为system.collections.generic，则可以使用“CopyTo”方法将数组中的元素复制到其他子数组中。您可以指定开始元素和要复制的元素数量。

你也可以对你的原始列表做3个克隆，并在每个列表上使用“RemoveRange”将列表缩小到你想要的大小。

或者只是创建一个helper方法来为您做这件事。

问题是如何“用LINQ将列表拆分为子列表”，但有时你可能希望这些子列表是对原始列表的引用，而不是副本。这允许您从子列表中修改原始列表。在这种情况下，这可能对你有用。

public static IEnumerable<Memory<T>> RefChunkBy<T>(this T[] array, int size)
{
    if (size < 1 || array is null)
    {
        throw new ArgumentException("chunkSize must be positive");
    }

    var index = 0;
    var counter = 0;

    for (int i = 0; i < array.Length; i++)
    {
        if (counter == size)
        {
            yield return new Memory<T>(array, index, size);
            index = i;
            counter = 0;
        }
        counter++;

        if (i + 1 == array.Length)
        {
            yield return new Memory<T>(array, index, array.Length - index);
        }
    }
}

用法:

var src = new[] { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 };

var c3 = RefChunkBy(src, 3);      // {{1, 2, 3}, {4, 5, 6}};
var c4 = RefChunkBy(src, 4);      // {{1, 2, 3, 4}, {5, 6}};

// as extension method
var c3 = src.RefChunkBy(3);      // {{1, 2, 3}, {4, 5, 6}};
var c4 = src.RefChunkBy(4);      // {{1, 2, 3, 4}, {5, 6}};

var sum = c3.Select(c => c.Span.ToArray().Sum());    // {6, 15}
var count = c3.Count();                 // 2
var take2 = c3.Select(c => c.Span.ToArray().Take(2));  // {{1, 2}, {4, 5}}

请随意修改代码。

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();

这个怎么样?

var input = new List<string> { "a", "g", "e", "w", "p", "s", "q", "f", "x", "y", "i", "m", "c" };
var k = 3

var res = Enumerable.Range(0, (input.Count - 1) / k + 1)
                    .Select(i => input.GetRange(i * k, Math.Min(k, input.Count - i * k)))
                    .ToList();

据我所知，GetRange()与所获取的项目数量是线性的。所以这应该表现得很好。