我想我还没见过这个解决方案:

boolean atLeast(int howMany, boolean[] boolValues) {
  // check params for valid values

  int counter = 0;
  for (boolean b : boolValues) {
    if (b) {
      counter++;

      if (counter == howMany) {
        return true;
      }
    }
  }
  return false;
}

它的优点是一旦达到你要找的数字，它就会崩溃。因此，如果这是“这1,000,000个值中至少有2个是真的”，而前两个值实际上是真的，那么它应该比一些更“正常”的解更快。

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 atLeastTwoTrue($a, $b, $c) {

  int count = 0;
  count = (a ? count + 1 : count);
  count = (b ? count + 1 : count);
  count = (c ? count + 1 : count);
  return (count >= 2);
}

最明显的改进是:

// There is no point in an else if you already returned.
boolean atLeastTwo(boolean a, boolean b, boolean c) {
    if ((a && b) || (b && c) || (a && c)) {
        return true;
    }
    return false;
}

然后

// There is no point in an if(true) return true otherwise return false.
boolean atLeastTwo(boolean a, boolean b, boolean c) {
    return ((a && b) || (b && c) || (a && c));
}

但这些改进都是微不足道的。

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)。

还有一种不太好的方法:

return (Boolean.valueOf(a).hashCode() + Boolean.valueOf(b).hashCode() + Boolean.valueOf(c).hashCode()) < 3705);

布尔哈希码值固定为true为1231,false为1237，因此同样可以使用<= 3699