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;
    }
}

在c#中，我首先想到的是:

public bool lol(int minTrue, params bool[] bools)
{
    return bools.Count( ( b ) => b ) >= minTrue;
}

应该很快。

调用应该是这样的:

lol( 2, true, true, false );

这样，您就将规则(两个必须为真)留给调用者，而不是将它们嵌入到方法中。

Function ReturnTrueIfTwoIsTrue(bool val1, val2, val3))
{
     return (System.Convert.ToInt16(val1) +
             System.Convert.ToInt16(val2) +
             System.Convert.ToInt16(val3)) > 1;
}

有太多方法可以做到这一点……

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?：

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.

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)。