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;
}

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);
    }
}

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;
        }
    }
}

我认为下面的建议是最快的。为了能够使用数组，我牺牲了源Enumerable的惰性。复制和提前知道每个子列表的长度。

public static IEnumerable<T[]> Chunk<T>(this IEnumerable<T> items, int size)
{
    T[] array = items as T[] ?? items.ToArray();
    for (int i = 0; i < array.Length; i+=size)
    {
        T[] chunk = new T[Math.Min(size, array.Length - i)];
        Array.Copy(array, i, chunk, 0, chunk.Length);
        yield return chunk;
    }
}

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。