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. [...]

使用LSP的一个重要例子是在软件测试中。

如果我有一个类a，它是B的一个符合lsp的子类，那么我可以重用B的测试套件来测试a。

为了完全测试子类A，我可能需要添加更多的测试用例，但至少我可以重用所有超类B的测试用例。

实现这一点的一种方法是构建McGregor所说的“用于测试的并行层次结构”:我的ATest类将继承BTest。然后需要某种形式的注入来确保测试用例使用类型A的对象而不是类型B的对象(一个简单的模板方法模式就可以了)。

注意，对所有子类实现重用超级测试套件实际上是一种测试这些子类实现是否与lsp兼容的方法。因此，人们也可以主张应该在任何子类的上下文中运行超类测试套件。

另请参阅对Stackoverflow问题的回答“我是否可以实现一系列可重用测试来测试接口的实现?”

在一个非常简单的句子中，我们可以说:

子类不能违背它的基类特征。它必须有能力。我们可以说这和子类型是一样的。

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。

它指出，如果C是E的子类型，则E可以替换为C类型的对象，而不会改变或破坏程序的行为。简单地说，派生类应该可以替代它们的父类。例如，如果一个农民的儿子是农民，那么他可以代替他的父亲工作，但如果一个农民的儿子是板球运动员，那么他就不能代替他的父亲工作。

违反的例子:

public class Plane{

  public void startEngine(){}      

}        
public class FighterJet extends Plane{}
    
public class PaperPlane extends Plane{}

在给定的例子中，fighter和PaperPlane类都扩展了包含startEngine()方法的Plane类。所以很明显，战斗机可以启动引擎，但纸飞机不能，所以它破坏LSP。

PaperPlane类虽然扩展了Plane类，但应该可以替代Plane类，但它不是Plane实例可以被替换的合格实体，因为纸飞机不能启动引擎，因为它没有引擎。好的例子是，

受人尊敬的例子:

public class Plane{ 
} 
public class RealPlane{

  public void startEngine(){} 

}
public class FighterJet extends RealPlane{} 
public class PaperPlane extends Plane{}

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. [...]