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;
     }
  }
}

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;
    }
}

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。

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.

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;
        }
    }

试试下面的代码。

public static List<List<T>> Split<T>(IList<T> source)
{
    return  source
        .Select((x, i) => new { Index = i, Value = x })
        .GroupBy(x => x.Index / 3)
        .Select(x => x.Select(v => v.Value).ToList())
        .ToList();
}

其思想是首先根据索引对元素进行分组。除以3的效果是把它们分成3组。然后将每个组转换为一个列表，将list的IEnumerable转换为list的list