目前的Java 8，我真的更喜欢这样的东西:

boolean atLeastTwo(boolean a, boolean b, boolean c) {
    return Stream.of(a, b, c).filter(active -> active).count() >= 2;
}

您不需要使用运算符的短路形式。

返回(a & b) | (b & c) | (c & a);

它执行与您的版本相同数量的逻辑操作，但是完全没有分支。

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.

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".

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。

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