在Clojure中:

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

用法:

(at-least 2 true false true)

如果你有很多布尔值，操作符重载很容易。

operator fun Boolean.unaryPlus() = if (this) 1 else 0
// ...
if(+bool1 + +bool2 + ... + +boolN > 2) {
    // ...
}

在我看来，3 / 3都是非常任意的数，函数应该适用于任意的数。为了回答这个问题，我要写一个函数来计算数组中的x是否为真，例如，

bool istrue ( int x, bool[] list)
    y = count true in list
    return y >= x

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.

作为@TofuBeer TofuBeer精彩帖子的补充，考虑@pdox pdox的回答:

static boolean five(final boolean a, final boolean b, final boolean c)
{
    return a == b ? a : c;
}

再考虑一下它的分解版本，如"javap -c"所给出的:

static boolean five(boolean, boolean, boolean);
  Code:
    0:    iload_0
    1:    iload_1
    2:    if_icmpne    9
    5:    iload_0
    6:    goto    10
    9:    iload_2
   10:    ireturn

Pdox的答案编译成的字节代码比之前的任何答案都要少。它的执行时间与其他的相比如何?

one                5242 ms
two                6318 ms
three (moonshadow) 3806 ms
four               7192 ms
five  (pdox)       3650 ms

至少在我的电脑上，pdox的回答比@moonshadow moonshadow的回答稍微快一点，使得pdox的回答是最快的(在我的惠普/英特尔笔记本电脑上)。

这真的取决于你对“改进”的定义:

清晰吗?

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

反之亦然？

boolean moreThanTwo(boolean a, boolean b, boolean c)
{
    return a == b ? a : c;
}

更一般的?

boolean moreThanXTrue(int x, boolean[] bs)
{
    int count = 0;

    for(boolean b : bs)
    {
        count += b ? 1 : 0;

        if(count > x) return true;
    }

    return false;
}

更多的可伸缩的吗?

boolean moreThanXTrue(int x, boolean[] bs)
{
    int count = 0;

    for(int i < 0; i < bs.length; i++)
    {
        count += bs[i] ? 1 : 0;

        if(count > x) return true;

        int needed = x - count;
        int remaining = bs.length - i;

        if(needed >= remaining) return false;
    }

    return false;
}

更快呢?

// Only profiling can answer this.

哪一种是“改进”的，很大程度上取决于具体情况。