在Ruby中:

[a, b, c]。计数{|x| x} >= 2

这可以在JavaVM上的JRuby中运行。: -)

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。

问题中的2和3显然是神奇的数字。“正确”的答案将取决于面试官是否试图了解你对布尔逻辑的理解(我不认为pdox的答案在这方面是最好的)或你对架构问题的理解。

我倾向于使用映射减少解决方案，它将接受任何类型的列表和任何任意条件。

int count=0;

boolean atLeastTwo(boolean a, boolean b, boolean c) {
    if (a)
        count++;
    if (b)
        count++;
    if (c)
        count++;

    if (count>1)
        return true;
    else
        return false;
}

If the goal is to return a bitwise two-out-of-three value for three operands, arithmetic and iterative approaches are apt to be relatively ineffective. On many CPU architectures, a good form would be "return ((a | b) & c) | (a & b);". That takes four boolean operations. On single-accumulator machines (common in small embedded systems) that's apt to take a total of seven instructions per byte. The form "return (a & b) | (a & c) | (b & c);" is perhaps nicer looking, but it would require five boolean operations, or nine instructions per byte on a single-accumulator machine.

顺便提一下，在CMOS逻辑中，计算“不是三选二”需要12个晶体管(相比之下，逆变器需要2个晶体管，双输入NAND或NOR需要4个晶体管，而三输入NAND或NOR需要6个晶体管)。

我的第一个想法是

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

但为了便于阅读，我喜欢你们提出的a+b+c>=2的解决方案