LSP的这种形式太强大了:

如果对于每个类型为S的对象o1，都有一个类型为T的对象o2，使得对于所有用T定义的程序P，当o1取代o2时，P的行为不变，那么S是T的子类型。

这基本上意味着S是t的另一个完全封装的实现，我可以大胆地认为性能是P行为的一部分……

因此，基本上，任何延迟绑定的使用都违反了LSP。当我们用一种类型的对象替换另一种类型的对象时，获得不同的行为是OO的全部意义所在!

维基百科引用的公式更好，因为属性取决于上下文，并不一定包括程序的整个行为。

Liskov替换原理(LSP, LSP)是面向对象编程中的一个概念，它指出:

函数使用指针或 基类的引用必须是 能够使用派生类的对象 在不知不觉中。

LSP的核心是关于接口和契约，以及如何决定何时扩展一个类，还是使用另一种策略(如组合)来实现您的目标。

我所见过的说明这一点的最有效的方法是《Head First OOA&D》。它们呈现的场景是，你是一名致力于为策略游戏构建框架的项目开发者。

他们展示了一个类，它代表一个板子，看起来像这样:

所有的方法都以X和Y坐标作为参数来定位tile在二维tile数组中的位置。这将允许游戏开发者在游戏过程中管理棋盘上的单位。

这本书继续改变了要求，说游戏框架工作也必须支持3D游戏板，以适应有飞行的游戏。因此引入了一个ThreeDBoard类，它扩展了Board。

乍一看，这似乎是个不错的决定。Board提供了高度和宽度属性，ThreeDBoard提供了Z轴。

当你看到从董事会继承的所有其他成员时，它就失效了。AddUnit, GetTile, GetUnits等方法在Board类中都采用X和Y参数，但ThreeDBoard也需要Z参数。

因此，您必须使用Z参数再次实现这些方法。Z参数没有Board类的上下文，从Board类继承的方法失去了意义。试图使用ThreeDBoard类作为其基类Board的代码单元将非常不走运。

也许我们应该另想办法。ThreeDBoard应该由Board对象组成，而不是扩展Board。Z轴上每单位一个板子对象。

这允许我们使用良好的面向对象原则，如封装和重用，并且不违反LSP。

这里有一个清单来确定你是否违反了利斯科夫法则。

如果你违反了以下项目之一->，你违反了里斯科夫。 如果你不违反任何->不能得出任何结论。

检查表:

No new exceptions should be thrown in derived class: If your base class threw ArgumentNullException then your sub classes were only allowed to throw exceptions of type ArgumentNullException or any exceptions derived from ArgumentNullException. Throwing IndexOutOfRangeException is a violation of Liskov. Pre-conditions cannot be strengthened: Assume your base class works with a member int. Now your sub-type requires that int to be positive. This is strengthened pre-conditions, and now any code that worked perfectly fine before with negative ints is broken. Post-conditions cannot be weakened: Assume your base class required all connections to the database should be closed before the method returned. In your sub-class you overrode that method and left the connection open for further reuse. You have weakened the post-conditions of that method. Invariants must be preserved: The most difficult and painful constraint to fulfill. Invariants are sometimes hidden in the base class and the only way to reveal them is to read the code of the base class. Basically you have to be sure when you override a method anything unchangeable must remain unchanged after your overridden method is executed. The best thing I can think of is to enforce these invariant constraints in the base class but that would not be easy. History Constraint: When overriding a method you are not allowed to modify an unmodifiable property in the base class. Take a look at these code and you can see Name is defined to be unmodifiable (private set) but SubType introduces new method that allows modifying it (through reflection): public class SuperType { public string Name { get; private set; } public SuperType(string name, int age) { Name = name; Age = age; } } public class SubType : SuperType { public void ChangeName(string newName) { var propertyType = base.GetType().GetProperty("Name").SetValue(this, newName); } }

还有2项:方法参数的逆变性和返回类型的协方差。但这在c#中是不可能的(我是c#开发人员)，所以我不关心它们。

Liskov's Substitution Principle(LSP) All the time we design a program module and we create some class hierarchies. Then we extend some classes creating some derived classes. We must make sure that the new derived classes just extend without replacing the functionality of old classes. Otherwise, the new classes can produce undesired effects when they are used in existing program modules. Liskov's Substitution Principle states that if a program module is using a Base class, then the reference to the Base class can be replaced with a Derived class without affecting the functionality of the program module.

例子:

Below is the classic example for which the Liskov's Substitution Principle is violated. In the example, 2 classes are used: Rectangle and Square. Let's assume that the Rectangle object is used somewhere in the application. We extend the application and add the Square class. The square class is returned by a factory pattern, based on some conditions and we don't know the exact what type of object will be returned. But we know it's a Rectangle. We get the rectangle object, set the width to 5 and height to 10 and get the area. For a rectangle with width 5 and height 10, the area should be 50. Instead, the result will be 100

    // Violation of Likov's Substitution Principle
class Rectangle {
    protected int m_width;
    protected int m_height;

    public void setWidth(int width) {
        m_width = width;
    }

    public void setHeight(int height) {
        m_height = height;
    }

    public int getWidth() {
        return m_width;
    }

    public int getHeight() {
        return m_height;
    }

    public int getArea() {
        return m_width * m_height;
    }
}

class Square extends Rectangle {
    public void setWidth(int width) {
        m_width = width;
        m_height = width;
    }

    public void setHeight(int height) {
        m_width = height;
        m_height = height;
    }

}

class LspTest {
    private static Rectangle getNewRectangle() {
        // it can be an object returned by some factory ...
        return new Square();
    }

    public static void main(String args[]) {
        Rectangle r = LspTest.getNewRectangle();

        r.setWidth(5);
        r.setHeight(10);
        // user knows that r it's a rectangle.
        // It assumes that he's able to set the width and height as for the base
        // class

        System.out.println(r.getArea());
        // now he's surprised to see that the area is 100 instead of 50.
    }
}

结论: 这个原则只是开闭原则的延伸 意味着我们必须确保新的派生类正在扩展 基类而不改变它们的行为。

参见:开闭原则

对于更好的结构，还有一些类似的概念:约定优于配置

罗伯特·马丁有一篇关于利斯科夫替换原理的优秀论文。它讨论了可能违反原则的微妙和不那么微妙的方式。

论文的一些相关部分(注意，第二个例子被大量压缩):

A Simple Example of a Violation of LSP One of the most glaring violations of this principle is the use of C++ Run-Time Type Information (RTTI) to select a function based upon the type of an object. i.e.: void DrawShape(const Shape& s) { if (typeid(s) == typeid(Square)) DrawSquare(static_cast<Square&>(s)); else if (typeid(s) == typeid(Circle)) DrawCircle(static_cast<Circle&>(s)); } Clearly the DrawShape function is badly formed. It must know about every possible derivative of the Shape class, and it must be changed whenever new derivatives of Shape are created. Indeed, many view the structure of this function as anathema to Object Oriented Design. Square and Rectangle, a More Subtle Violation. However, there are other, far more subtle, ways of violating the LSP. Consider an application which uses the Rectangle class as described below: class Rectangle { public: void SetWidth(double w) {itsWidth=w;} void SetHeight(double h) {itsHeight=w;} double GetHeight() const {return itsHeight;} double GetWidth() const {return itsWidth;} private: double itsWidth; double itsHeight; }; [...] Imagine that one day the users demand the ability to manipulate squares in addition to rectangles. [...] Clearly, a square is a rectangle for all normal intents and purposes. Since the ISA relationship holds, it is logical to model the Square class as being derived from Rectangle. [...] Square will inherit the SetWidth and SetHeight functions. These functions are utterly inappropriate for a Square, since the width and height of a square are identical. This should be a significant clue that there is a problem with the design. However, there is a way to sidestep the problem. We could override SetWidth and SetHeight [...] But consider the following function: void f(Rectangle& r) { r.SetWidth(32); // calls Rectangle::SetWidth } If we pass a reference to a Square object into this function, the Square object will be corrupted because the height won’t be changed. This is a clear violation of LSP. The function does not work for derivatives of its arguments. [...]

关于LSP的一个很好的例子(在我最近听到的播客中，Bob叔叔给出了一个例子)是，有时候在自然语言中听起来正确的东西在代码中却不太适用。

在数学中，正方形是长方形。实际上，它是矩形的专门化。“is a”使您想用继承来建模。然而，如果在代码中你从Rectangle派生出Square，那么Square应该可以在任何你想要Rectangle的地方使用。这就导致了一些奇怪的行为。

假设你在你的Rectangle基类上有SetWidth和SetHeight方法;这似乎完全合乎逻辑。然而，如果你的矩形引用指向一个正方形，那么SetWidth和SetHeight没有意义，因为设置一个会改变另一个来匹配它。在这种情况下，Square未能通过矩形的利斯科夫替换测试，并且让Square继承Rectangle的抽象是一个糟糕的抽象。

你们都应该看看其他用励志海报解释的无价的坚实原则。