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。

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?：

下面是使用map/reduce的另一个实现。在分布式环境中，这可以很好地扩展到数十亿布尔值©。使用MongoDB:

创建数据库的布尔值:

db.values.insert({value: true});
db.values.insert({value: false});
db.values.insert({value: true});

创建map, reduce函数:

编辑:我喜欢CurtainDog的回答有映射/减少适用于泛型列表，所以这里有一个地图函数，它接受一个回调，决定一个值是否应该被计数。

var mapper = function(shouldInclude) {
    return function() {
        emit(null, shouldInclude(this) ? 1 : 0);
    };
}

var reducer = function(key, values) {
    var sum = 0;
    for(var i = 0; i < values.length; i++) {
        sum += values[i];
    }
    return sum;
}

运行map / reduce:

var result = db.values.mapReduce(mapper(isTrue), reducer).result;

containsMinimum(2, result); // true
containsMinimum(1, result); // false


function isTrue(object) {
    return object.value == true;
}

function containsMinimum(count, resultDoc) {
    var record = db[resultDoc].find().next();
    return record.value >= count;
}

这个问题的最佳答案应该是:“作为一名员工，我写出来的东西很重要，这样我的意思就能清楚地表达出来，同时又能保持绩效所需的效率。”我是这样写的:

function atLeastTwoAreTrue(a, b, c) {
    return (a && b) || (b && c) || (a && c);
}

在现实中，这个测试是如此的刻意，以至于如果您用一个简单的注释来容纳它，那么编写一个最快、最神秘的方法是完全可以接受的。但是，一般来说，在这个一行代码的世界里，我们需要更多可读的代码。: -)

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;
    }
}

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.