到目前为止，我发现LSP最清晰的解释是“利斯科夫替换原则说，派生类的对象应该能够替换基类的对象，而不会给系统带来任何错误，也不会修改基类的行为”。文中给出了违反LSP的代码示例并进行了修复。

利斯科夫替换原则(来自Mark Seemann的书)指出，我们应该能够在不破坏客户端或实现的情况下，用另一个接口的实现替换一个接口的实现。正是这一原则使我们能够解决未来出现的需求，即使我们今天不能预见它们。

If we unplug the computer from the wall (Implementation), neither the wall outlet (Interface) nor the computer (Client) breaks down (in fact, if it’s a laptop computer, it can even run on its batteries for a period of time). With software, however, a client often expects a service to be available. If the service was removed, we get a NullReferenceException. To deal with this type of situation, we can create an implementation of an interface that does “nothing.” This is a design pattern known as Null Object,[4] and it corresponds roughly to unplugging the computer from the wall. Because we’re using loose coupling, we can replace a real implementation with something that does nothing without causing trouble.

LSP关注不变量。

经典示例由以下伪代码声明给出(实现略):

class Rectangle {
    int getHeight()
    void setHeight(int value) {
        postcondition: width didn’t change
    }
    int getWidth()
    void setWidth(int value) {
        postcondition: height didn’t change
    }
}

class Square extends Rectangle { }

现在我们有一个问题，尽管接口匹配。原因是我们违反了源自正方形和矩形数学定义的不变量。getter和setter的工作方式，矩形应该满足以下不变量:

void invariant(Rectangle r) {
    r.setHeight(200)
    r.setWidth(100)
    assert(r.getHeight() == 200 and r.getWidth() == 100)
}

然而，Square的正确实现必须违反这个不变量(以及显式后置条件)，因此它不是Rectangle的有效替代品。

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。

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. [...]

让我们用Java来说明:

class TrasportationDevice
{
   String name;
   String getName() { ... }
   void setName(String n) { ... }

   double speed;
   double getSpeed() { ... }
   void setSpeed(double d) { ... }

   Engine engine;
   Engine getEngine() { ... }
   void setEngine(Engine e) { ... }

   void startEngine() { ... }
}

class Car extends TransportationDevice
{
   @Override
   void startEngine() { ... }
}

这里没有问题，对吧?汽车绝对是一种交通工具，在这里我们可以看到它重写了其超类的startEngine()方法。

让我们添加另一个交通工具:

class Bicycle extends TransportationDevice
{
   @Override
   void startEngine() /*problem!*/
}

现在一切都不按计划进行了!是的，自行车是一种交通工具，但是，它没有发动机，因此，startEngine()方法不能实现。

这些都是违反利斯科夫代换法的问题 原则导致，他们通常可以被一个公认的 方法，该方法什么也不做，甚至不能实现。

这些问题的解决方案是一个正确的继承层次结构，在我们的例子中，我们将通过区分带引擎和不带引擎的运输设备类别来解决问题。尽管自行车是一种交通工具，但它没有发动机。在这个例子中，我们对交通工具的定义是错误的。它不应该有引擎。

我们可以像下面这样重构TransportationDevice类:

class TrasportationDevice
{
   String name;
   String getName() { ... }
   void setName(String n) { ... }

   double speed;
   double getSpeed() { ... }
   void setSpeed(double d) { ... }
}

现在我们可以为非机动设备扩展TransportationDevice。

class DevicesWithoutEngines extends TransportationDevice
{  
   void startMoving() { ... }
}

并为机动设备扩展TransportationDevice。这里更适合添加Engine对象。

class DevicesWithEngines extends TransportationDevice
{  
   Engine engine;
   Engine getEngine() { ... }
   void setEngine(Engine e) { ... }

   void startEngine() { ... }
}

因此，我们的Car类变得更加专门化，同时坚持利斯科夫替换原则。

class Car extends DevicesWithEngines
{
   @Override
   void startEngine() { ... }
}

我们的Bicycle类也遵循利斯科夫替换原理。

class Bicycle extends DevicesWithoutEngines
{
   @Override
   void startMoving() { ... }
}