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。：）

三元运算符让人觉得很无聊，但它们也会令人困惑(使代码更难维护，从而增加了注入错误的可能性)。Jeff Attwood说得很好:

这是一个权衡取舍的完美例子 毫无意义的一次 写的时候节省了几十个 阅读时间理解惩罚——它 让我思考。

为了避免三元操作符，我创建了以下函数:

function atLeastTwoTrue($a, $b, $c) {
        $count = 0;

        if ($a) { $count++; }
        if ($b) { $count++; }
        if ($c) { $count++; }

        if ($count >= 2) {
                return true;
        } else {
                return false;
        }
}

这个和其他解一样酷吗?不。这样更容易理解吗?是的。这是否会使代码更具可维护性、bug更少?是的。

return (a==b) ? a : c;

解释:

如果a==b，则两者都为真或都为假。如果两者都为真，我们已经找到了两个真布尔值，并可以返回真(通过返回a)。如果两者都为假，即使c为真，也不可能有两个真布尔值，因此我们返回假(通过返回a)。这是(a==b) ?一个部分。c呢?如果a==b为假，那么a或b中只有一个为真，所以我们找到了第一个真布尔值，剩下的唯一问题是c是否也为真，所以我们返回c作为答案。

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)。

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.

return 1 << $a << $b << $c >= 1 << 2;