当我看到这个问题时，我的第一个想法是:

int count=0;
if (a)
    ++count;
if (b)
    ++count;
if (c)
    ++count;
return count>=2;

在看了其他帖子后，我承认

return (a?1:0)+(b?1:0)+(c?1:0)>=2;

更优雅。我想知道相对运行时是什么。

不过，无论如何，我认为这种解决办法比那种解决办法要好得多

return a&b | b&c | a&c;

variety because is is more easily extensible. What if later we add a fourth variable that must be tested? What if the number of variables is determined at runtime, and we are passed an array of booleans of unknown size? A solution that depends on counting is much easier to extend than a solution that depends on listing every possible combination. Also, when listing all possible combinations, I suspect that it is much easier to make a mistake. Like try writing the code for "any 3 of 4" and make sure you neither miss any nor duplicate any. Now try it with "any 5 of 7".

总结一下。它被称为布尔代数是有原因的:

  0 x 0 = 0
  1 x 0 = 0
  1 x 1 = 1

  0 + 0 = 0
  1 + 0 = 1
  1 + 1 = 0 (+ carry)

如果你看那里的真值表，你可以看到乘法是布尔和，而简单的加法是异或。

回答你的问题:

return (a + b + c) >= 2

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。

X = OR(a+b,c)

a b c X

1, 1, 0, 1

0, 0, 1, 1

0, 1, 1, 1

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。