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
我们可以将bool转换为整数，并执行以下简单的检查:
(int(a) + int(b) + int(c)) >= 2
其他回答
这个怎么样:
(a - b) ? c : a
还有一种不太好的方法:
return (Boolean.valueOf(a).hashCode() + Boolean.valueOf(b).hashCode() + Boolean.valueOf(c).hashCode()) < 3705);
布尔哈希码值固定为true为1231,false为1237，因此同样可以使用<= 3699
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
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.
您不需要使用运算符的短路形式。
返回(a & b) | (b & c) | (c & a);
它执行与您的版本相同数量的逻辑操作，但是完全没有分支。
