他可能不是在寻找像位比较操作符这样复杂的东西(通常不是复杂的，但使用布尔值，使用位操作符是非常奇怪的)，或者像转换为int并对它们求和这样非常迂回的东西。

解决这个问题最直接和自然的方法是用这样的表达式:

a ? (b || c): (b && c)

如果你喜欢，可以把它放到一个函数里，但这并不复杂。该解决方案在逻辑上简洁有效。

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".

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;
    }
}

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?：

当然，这个问题更多的是关于你如何解决问题/思考，而不是你实际的编码能力。

一个稍微简洁一点的版本可能是

返回((a ^ b) && (b ^ c)) ^ b

但就像之前的一个帖子说的，如果我在任何我正在编写的代码中看到这个，有人会听到很多。：）

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.