在Clojure中:

(defn at-least [n & bools]
  (>= (count (filter true? bools)) n)

用法:

(at-least 2 true false true)

在Ruby中:

[a, b, c]。计数{|x| x} >= 2

这可以在JavaVM上的JRuby中运行。: -)

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".

以下是目前为止的答案:

public class X
{
    static boolean a(final boolean a, final boolean b, final boolean c)
    {
    return ((a && b) || (b && c) || (a && c));
    }

    static boolean b(final boolean a, final boolean b, final boolean c)
    {
    return a ? (b || c) : (b && c);
    }

    static boolean c(final boolean a, final boolean b, final boolean c)
    {
    return ((a & b) | (b & c) | (c & a));
    }

    static boolean d(final boolean a, final boolean b, final boolean c)
    {
    return ((a?1:0)+(b?1:0)+(c?1:0) >= 2);
    }
}

并通过反编译器运行它们(javap -c X > results.txt):

Compiled from "X.java"
public class X extends java.lang.Object{
public X();
  Code:
   0:   aload_0
   1:   invokespecial   #1; //Method java/lang/Object."<init>":()V
   4:   return

static boolean a(boolean, boolean, boolean);
  Code:
   0:   iload_0
   1:   ifeq    8
   4:   iload_1
   5:   ifne    24
   8:   iload_1
   9:   ifeq    16
   12:  iload_2
   13:  ifne    24
   16:  iload_0
   17:  ifeq    28
   20:  iload_2
   21:  ifeq    28
   24:  iconst_1
   25:  goto    29
   28:  iconst_0
   29:  ireturn

static boolean b(boolean, boolean, boolean);
  Code:
   0:   iload_0
   1:   ifeq    20
   4:   iload_1
   5:   ifne    12
   8:   iload_2
   9:   ifeq    16
   12:  iconst_1
   13:  goto    33
   16:  iconst_0
   17:  goto    33
   20:  iload_1
   21:  ifeq    32
   24:  iload_2
   25:  ifeq    32
   28:  iconst_1
   29:  goto    33
   32:  iconst_0
   33:  ireturn

static boolean c(boolean, boolean, boolean);
  Code:
   0:   iload_0
   1:   iload_1
   2:   iand
   3:   iload_1
   4:   iload_2
   5:   iand
   6:   ior
   7:   iload_2
   8:   iload_0
   9:   iand
   10:  ior
   11:  ireturn

static boolean d(boolean, boolean, boolean);
  Code:
   0:   iload_0
   1:   ifeq    8
   4:   iconst_1
   5:   goto    9
   8:   iconst_0
   9:   iload_1
   10:  ifeq    17
   13:  iconst_1
   14:  goto    18
   17:  iconst_0
   18:  iadd
   19:  iload_2
   20:  ifeq    27
   23:  iconst_1
   24:  goto    28
   27:  iconst_0
   28:  iadd
   29:  iconst_2
   30:  if_icmplt   37
   33:  iconst_1
   34:  goto    38
   37:  iconst_0
   38:  ireturn
}

你可以看到?:那些比你原来的修复版本稍好。最好的方法是完全避免分支的方法。从更少的指令(在大多数情况下)的角度来看，这很好，对于CPU的分支预测部分来说也更好，因为分支预测中的错误猜测可能会导致CPU失速。

我觉得最有效的是《月影》里的那个。它平均使用最少的指令，减少了CPU中管道停顿的机会。

为了100%确定，您需要找出每条指令的成本(以CPU周期为单位)，不幸的是，这是不容易获得的(您必须查看热点的源代码，然后查看CPU供应商的规格，以确定每条生成指令所花费的时间)。

请参阅Rotsor对代码的运行时分析的更新答案。

我不喜欢三元(return a ?(b || c):(b && c);从最上面的答案)，我想我没有看到任何人提到过它。它是这样写的:

boolean atLeastTwo(boolean a, boolean b, boolean c) {
    if (a) {
        return b||c;
    } 
    else {
        return b&&C;
    }

在C:

return !!a + !!b + !!c >= 2;