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. [...]

一些补充:我想知道为什么没有人写基类的不变量、前提条件和后置条件，这些派生类必须遵守。 对于派生类D来说，基类B完全可转换，类D必须服从某些条件:

基类的内变体必须由派生类保留 派生类不能加强基类的先决条件 派生类不能削弱基类的后置条件。

因此派生类必须知道基类施加的上述三个条件。因此，子类型的规则是预先确定的。这意味着，只有当子类型遵守某些规则时，才应该遵守'IS A'关系。这些规则，以不变量、前置条件和后置条件的形式，应该由正式的“设计契约”来决定。

关于这个问题的进一步讨论可以在我的博客:利斯科夫替换原理

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. [...]

以下是这篇文章的摘录，很好地澄清了事情:

(. .为了理解一些原则，重要的是要意识到它什么时候被违反了。这就是我现在要做的。

违反这一原则意味着什么?它意味着对象不履行用接口表示的抽象所施加的契约。换句话说，这意味着您错误地识别了抽象。

考虑下面的例子:

interface Account
{
    /**
     * Withdraw $money amount from this account.
     *
     * @param Money $money
     * @return mixed
     */
    public function withdraw(Money $money);
}
class DefaultAccount implements Account
{
    private $balance;
    public function withdraw(Money $money)
    {
        if (!$this->enoughMoney($money)) {
            return;
        }
        $this->balance->subtract($money);
    }
}

是否违反LSP?是的。这是因为帐户合同告诉我们帐户将被提取，但情况并非总是如此。那么，我该怎么做才能解决这个问题呢?我只是修改了合同:

interface Account
{
    /**
     * Withdraw $money amount from this account if its balance is enough.
     * Otherwise do nothing.
     *
     * @param Money $money
     * @return mixed
     */
    public function withdraw(Money $money);
}

Voilà，现在合同已得到满足。

这种微妙的违反通常会使客户有能力区分所使用的具体对象之间的差异。例如，给定第一个Account的契约，它看起来像下面这样:

class Client
{
    public function go(Account $account, Money $money)
    {
        if ($account instanceof DefaultAccount && !$account->hasEnoughMoney($money)) {
            return;
        }
        $account->withdraw($money);
    }
}

而且，这自动违反了开闭原则(即取款要求)。因为你永远不知道如果违反合同的对象没有足够的钱会发生什么。它可能什么都不返回，可能会抛出异常。所以你必须检查它是否hasEnoughMoney()——这不是接口的一部分。因此这种强制的依赖于具体类的检查违反了OCP。

这一点也解决了我经常遇到的关于LSP违反的误解。它说:“如果父母的行为在孩子身上改变了，那么它就违反了LSP。”然而，事实并非如此——只要孩子不违反父母的契约。

使用指向基类的指针或引用的函数必须能够在不知道它的情况下使用派生类的对象。

当我第一次阅读LSP时，我认为这是一个非常严格的含义，本质上等同于接口实现和类型安全强制转换。这意味着语言本身要么保证LSP，要么不保证LSP。例如，在严格意义上，ThreeDBoard当然可以取代Board，就编译器而言。

在阅读了更多关于LSP的概念之后，我发现LSP的解释通常比这更广泛。

简而言之，对于客户端代码来说，“知道”指针后面的对象是派生类型而不是指针类型的含义并不仅限于类型安全。对LSP的遵守也可以通过探测对象的实际行为进行测试。也就是说，检查对象的状态和方法参数对方法调用结果或从对象抛出的异常类型的影响。

再次回到示例，理论上Board方法可以在ThreeDBoard上很好地工作。然而，在实践中，在不妨碍ThreeDBoard打算添加的功能的情况下，防止客户端可能无法正确处理的行为差异是非常困难的。

掌握了这些知识后，评估LSP粘附性可以成为一个很好的工具，可以确定何时组合机制更适合扩展现有功能，而不是继承。

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。