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;
     }
  }
}

几年前我写了一个集群扩展方法。工作得很好，是这里最快的实现。: P

/// <summary>
/// Clumps items into same size lots.
/// </summary>
/// <typeparam name="T"></typeparam>
/// <param name="source">The source list of items.</param>
/// <param name="size">The maximum size of the clumps to make.</param>
/// <returns>A list of list of items, where each list of items is no bigger than the size given.</returns>
public static IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> Clump<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, int size)
{
    if (source == null)
        throw new ArgumentNullException("source");
    if (size < 1)
        throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("size", "size must be greater than 0");

    return ClumpIterator<T>(source, size);
}

private static IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> ClumpIterator<T>(IEnumerable<T> source, int size)
{
    Debug.Assert(source != null, "source is null.");

    T[] items = new T[size];
    int count = 0;
    foreach (var item in source)
    {
        items[count] = item;
        count++;

        if (count == size)
        {
            yield return items;
            items = new T[size];
            count = 0;
        }
    }
    if (count > 0)
    {
        if (count == size)
            yield return items;
        else
        {
            T[] tempItems = new T[count];
            Array.Copy(items, tempItems, count);
            yield return tempItems;
        }
    }
}

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;
    }
}

系统。Interactive为此提供了Buffer()。一些快速测试显示性能与Sam的解决方案类似。

如果源集合实现了IList < T >(按索引随机访问)，我们可以使用下面的方法。它只在真正访问元素时获取元素，因此这对于延迟求值的集合特别有用。类似于unbounded IEnumerable< T >，但是对于IList< T >。

    public static IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> Chunkify<T>(this IList<T> src, int chunkSize)
    {
        if (src == null) throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(src));
        if (chunkSize < 1) throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException(nameof(chunkSize), $"must be > 0, got {chunkSize}");

        for(var ci = 0; ci <= src.Count/chunkSize; ci++){
            yield return Window(src, ci*chunkSize, Math.Min((ci+1)*chunkSize, src.Count)-1);
        }
    }

    private static IEnumerable<T> Window<T>(IList<T> src, int startIdx, int endIdx)
    {
        Console.WriteLine($"window {startIdx} - {endIdx}");
        while(startIdx <= endIdx){
            yield return src[startIdx++];
        }
    }

可与无限发电机工作:

a.Zip(a.Skip(1), (x, y) => Enumerable.Repeat(x, 1).Concat(Enumerable.Repeat(y, 1)))
 .Zip(a.Skip(2), (xy, z) => xy.Concat(Enumerable.Repeat(z, 1)))
 .Where((x, i) => i % 3 == 0)

演示代码:https://ideone.com/GKmL7M

using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;

public class Test
{
  private static void DoIt(IEnumerable<int> a)
  {
    Console.WriteLine(String.Join(" ", a));

    foreach (var x in a.Zip(a.Skip(1), (x, y) => Enumerable.Repeat(x, 1).Concat(Enumerable.Repeat(y, 1))).Zip(a.Skip(2), (xy, z) => xy.Concat(Enumerable.Repeat(z, 1))).Where((x, i) => i % 3 == 0))
      Console.WriteLine(String.Join(" ", x));

    Console.WriteLine();
  }

  public static void Main()
  {
    DoIt(new int[] {1});
    DoIt(new int[] {1, 2});
    DoIt(new int[] {1, 2, 3});
    DoIt(new int[] {1, 2, 3, 4});
    DoIt(new int[] {1, 2, 3, 4, 5});
    DoIt(new int[] {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6});
  }
}

1

1 2

1 2 3
1 2 3

1 2 3 4
1 2 3

1 2 3 4 5
1 2 3

1 2 3 4 5 6
1 2 3
4 5 6

但实际上我更喜欢写相应的方法没有linq。