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。

利斯科夫替换原理

(固体)

继承子类型化

维基里斯科夫替换原理(LSP)

在子类型中不能加强先决条件。 后置条件不能在子类型中减弱。 超类型的不变量必须保留在子类型中。

子类型不应该要求调用者提供比超类型更多的(先决条件) 子类型不应该为小于超类型的调用者公开(后置条件)

*前置条件+后置条件=函数(方法)类型[Swift函数类型。Swift函数与方法

//Swift function
func foo(parameter: Class1) -> Class2

//function type
(Class1) -> Class2

//Precondition
Class1

//Postcondition
Class2

例子

//C3 -> C2 -> C1

class C1 {}
class C2: C1 {}
class C3: C2 {}

前提条件(如。函数参数类型)可以相同或更弱(力求-> C1) 后置条件(如。函数返回类型)可以相同或更强(力求-> C3) 超类型的不变变量[About]应该保持不变

斯威夫特

class A {
    func foo(a: C2) -> C2 {
        return C2()
    }
}

class B: A {
    override func foo(a: C1) -> C3 {
        return C3()
    }
}

Java

class A {
    public C2 foo(C2 a) {
        return new C2();
    }
}

class B extends A {
    @Override
    public C3 foo(C2 a) { //You are available pass only C2 as parameter
        return new C3();
    }
}

行为子类型化

维基里斯科夫替换原理(LSP)

子类型中方法参数类型的逆变性。子类型中方法返回类型的协方差。 子类型中的方法不能引发新的异常，除非它们是超类型的方法引发的异常的子类型。

[方差，协方差，逆变，不变性]

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。

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。

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. [...]