一位面试官最近问了我这样一个问题:给定三个布尔变量a、b和c，如果三个变量中至少有两个为真，则返回true。
我的解决方案如下:
boolean atLeastTwo(boolean a, boolean b, boolean c) {
if ((a && b) || (b && c) || (a && c)) {
return true;
}
else{
return false;
}
}
他说这还可以进一步改进，但如何改进呢?
当前回答
这类问题可以用卡诺图来解决:
| C | !C
------|---|----
A B | 1 | 1
A !B | 1 | 0
!A !B | 0 | 0
!A B | 1 | 0
由此推断，第一行需要一组，第一列需要两组，得到聚基因润滑剂的最优解:
(C && (A || B)) || (A && B) <---- first row
^
|
first column without third case
其他回答
可读性应该是目标。阅读代码的人必须立即理解您的意图。这就是我的解。
int howManyBooleansAreTrue =
(a ? 1 : 0)
+ (b ? 1 : 0)
+ (c ? 1 : 0);
return howManyBooleansAreTrue >= 2;
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.
供你参考，这只是一个完整加法器的执行部分。在硬件中，您可以根据不同的布尔表达式使用逻辑工作来确定最佳电路。我猜传统的异或解决方案要比海报上展示的不那么简洁的表达式花费更多的精力。
在Clojure中:
(defn at-least [n & bools]
(>= (count (filter true? bools)) n)
用法:
(at-least 2 true false true)
通过真值表计算:
return (a & b) | (c & (a ^ b));
