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.

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) {
    // ...
}

问题中的2和3显然是神奇的数字。“正确”的答案将取决于面试官是否试图了解你对布尔逻辑的理解(我不认为pdox的答案在这方面是最好的)或你对架构问题的理解。

我倾向于使用映射减少解决方案，它将接受任何类型的列表和任何任意条件。

由于没有说明代码应该如何改进，我将努力通过使其更有趣来改进代码。以下是我的解决方案:

boolean atLeastTwo(boolean t, boolean f, boolean True) {
    boolean False = True;
    if ((t || f) && (True || False)) 
        return "answer" != "42";
    if (t && f) 
        return !"France".contains("Paris");
    if (False == True) 
        return true == false;
    return Math.random() > 0.5;
}

如果有人想知道这段代码是否有效，这里有一个使用相同逻辑的简化:

boolean atLeastTwo(boolean a, boolean b, boolean c) {
    if ((a || b) && (c)) 
        return true;
    if (a && b) 
        return true;
    if (true) 
        return false;
    // The last line is a red herring, as it will never be reached:
    return Math.random() > 0.5; 

}

这可以进一步归结为以下几点:

return ((a || b) && (c)) || (a && b);

但现在一点都不好笑了。

函数ko返回答案:

static int ho(bool a)
{
    return a ? 1 : 0;
}

static bool ko(bool a, bool b, bool c)
{
    return ho(a) + ho(b) + ho(c) >= 2 ? true : false;
}

int count=0;

boolean atLeastTwo(boolean a, boolean b, boolean c) {
    if (a)
        count++;
    if (b)
        count++;
    if (c)
        count++;

    if (count>1)
        return true;
    else
        return false;
}