下面是一个测试驱动的通用方法。虽然不像目前提供的大多数解决方案那样“高效”，但是清晰、经过测试、有效且通用。

public class CountBooleansTest extends TestCase {
    public void testThreeFalse() throws Exception {
        assertFalse(atLeastTwoOutOfThree(false, false, false));
    }

    public void testThreeTrue() throws Exception {
        assertTrue(atLeastTwoOutOfThree(true, true, true));
    }

    public void testOnes() throws Exception {
        assertFalse(atLeastTwoOutOfThree(true, false, false));
        assertFalse(atLeastTwoOutOfThree(false, true, false));
        assertFalse(atLeastTwoOutOfThree(false, false, true));
    }

    public void testTwos() throws Exception {
        assertTrue(atLeastTwoOutOfThree(false, true, true));
        assertTrue(atLeastTwoOutOfThree(true, false, true));
        assertTrue(atLeastTwoOutOfThree(true, true, false));
    }

    private static boolean atLeastTwoOutOfThree(boolean b, boolean c, boolean d) {
        return countBooleans(b, c, d) >= 2;
    }

    private static int countBooleans(boolean... bs) {
        int count = 0;
        for (boolean b : bs)
            if (b)
                count++;
        return count;
    }
}

而不是写:

if (someExpression) {
    return true;
} else {
    return false;
}

写:

return someExpression;

至于表达式本身，是这样的:

boolean atLeastTwo(boolean a, boolean b, boolean c) {
    return a ? (b || c) : (b && c);
}

或者这个(你觉得哪个更容易理解):

boolean atLeastTwo(boolean a, boolean b, boolean c) {
    return a && (b || c) || (b && c);
}

它只测试a和b一次，c最多测试一次。

参考文献

JLS 15.25条件运算符?：

最明显的改进是:

// There is no point in an else if you already returned.
boolean atLeastTwo(boolean a, boolean b, boolean c) {
    if ((a && b) || (b && c) || (a && c)) {
        return true;
    }
    return false;
}

然后

// There is no point in an if(true) return true otherwise return false.
boolean atLeastTwo(boolean a, boolean b, boolean c) {
    return ((a && b) || (b && c) || (a && c));
}

但这些改进都是微不足道的。

One thing I haven't seen others point out is that a standard thing to do in the "please write me some code" section of the job interview is to say "Could you improve that?" or "Are you completely happy with that" or "is that as optimized as possible?" when you say you are done. It's possible you heard "how would you improve that" as "this might be improved; how?". In this case changing the if(x) return true; else return false; idiom to just return x is an improvement - but be aware that there are times they just want to see how you react to the question. I have heard that some interviewers will insist there is a flaw in perfect code just to see how you cope with it.

最简单的方式(IMO)，不容易混淆，容易阅读:

// Three booleans, check if two or more are true

return ( a && ( b || c ) ) || ( b && c );

三元运算符让人觉得很无聊，但它们也会令人困惑(使代码更难维护，从而增加了注入错误的可能性)。Jeff Attwood说得很好:

这是一个权衡取舍的完美例子 毫无意义的一次 写的时候节省了几十个 阅读时间理解惩罚——它 让我思考。

为了避免三元操作符，我创建了以下函数:

function atLeastTwoTrue($a, $b, $c) {
        $count = 0;

        if ($a) { $count++; }
        if ($b) { $count++; }
        if ($c) { $count++; }

        if ($count >= 2) {
                return true;
        } else {
                return false;
        }
}

这个和其他解一样酷吗?不。这样更容易理解吗?是的。这是否会使代码更具可维护性、bug更少?是的。