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.

山姆·萨弗伦的做法是如此的做作。

public static IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> Batch<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, int size)
{
    if (source == null) throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(source));
    if (size <= 0) throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException(nameof(size), "Size must be greater than zero.");

    return BatchImpl(source, size).TakeWhile(x => x.Any());
}

static IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> BatchImpl<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, int size)
{
    var values = new List<T>();
    var group = 1;
    var disposed = false;
    var e = source.GetEnumerator();

    try
    {
        while (!disposed)
        {
            yield return GetBatch(e, values, group, size, () => { e.Dispose(); disposed = true; });
            group++;
        }
    }
    finally
    {
        if (!disposed)
            e.Dispose();
    }
}

static IEnumerable<T> GetBatch<T>(IEnumerator<T> e, List<T> values, int group, int size, Action dispose)
{
    var min = (group - 1) * size + 1;
    var max = group * size;
    var hasValue = false;

    while (values.Count < min && e.MoveNext())
    {
        values.Add(e.Current);
    }

    for (var i = min; i <= max; i++)
    {
        if (i <= values.Count)
        {
            hasValue = true;
        }
        else if (hasValue = e.MoveNext())
        {
            values.Add(e.Current);
        }
        else
        {
            dispose();
        }

        if (hasValue)
            yield return values[i - 1];
        else
            yield break;
    }
}

}

没有办法在一个解决方案中结合所有理想的特性，如完全懒惰、无复制、完全通用性和安全性。最根本的原因是不能保证在访问块之前输入不发生变化。 假设我们有一个如下签名的函数:

public static IEnumerable<IEnumerable<T>> Chunk<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source, int chunkSize)
{
    // Some implementation
}

那么下面的使用方式就有问题了:

var myList = new List<int>()
{
    1,2,3,4
};
var myChunks = myList.Chunk(2);
myList.RemoveAt(0);
var firstChunk = myChunks.First();    
Console.WriteLine("First chunk:" + String.Join(',', firstChunk));
myList.RemoveAt(0);
var secondChunk = myChunks.Skip(1).First();
Console.WriteLine("Second chunk:" + String.Join(',', secondChunk));
// What outputs do we see for first and second chunk? Probably not what you would expect...

根据具体的实现，代码将失败并产生运行时错误或产生不直观的结果。

所以，至少有一个属性需要减弱。如果你想要一个无懈无击的惰性解决方案，你需要将输入类型限制为不可变类型，即使这样也不能直接覆盖所有用例。但是，如果您可以控制使用，您仍然可以选择最通用的解决方案，只要您确保以一种有效的方式使用它。否则，你可能会放弃懒惰，接受一定数量的复制。

最后，这完全取决于您的用例和需求，哪种解决方案最适合您。

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.

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。

对于任何对打包/维护解决方案感兴趣的人来说，MoreLINQ库提供了符合您所请求行为的批处理扩展方法:

IEnumerable<char> source = "Example string";
IEnumerable<IEnumerable<char>> chunksOfThreeChars = source.Batch(3);

批处理实现类似于Cameron MacFarland的答案，在返回之前添加了用于转换块/批处理的重载，并且性能相当好。