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. [...]

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。

我想每个人都了解LSP在技术上是什么:你基本上希望能够从子类型细节中抽象出来，并安全地使用超类型。

所以利斯科夫有3条基本规则:

Signature Rule : There should be a valid implementation of every operation of the supertype in the subtype syntactically. Something a compiler will be able to check for you. There is a little rule about throwing fewer exceptions and being at least as accessible as the supertype methods. Methods Rule: The implementation of those operations is semantically sound. Weaker Preconditions : The subtype functions should take at least what the supertype took as input, if not more. Stronger Postconditions: They should produce a subset of the output the supertype methods produced. Properties Rule : This goes beyond individual function calls. Invariants : Things that are always true must remain true. Eg. a Set's size is never negative. Evolutionary Properties : Usually something to do with immutability or the kind of states the object can be in. Or maybe the object only grows and never shrinks so the subtype methods shouldn't make it.

所有这些属性都需要保留，并且额外的子类型功能不应该违反超类型属性。

如果这三件事都处理好了，那么您就从底层的东西中抽象出来了，并且您正在编写松散耦合的代码。

来源:程序开发在Java -芭芭拉利斯科夫

以Board数组的形式实现ThreeDBoard会有用吗?

也许你想把不同平面上的ThreeDBoard切片作为一个板。在这种情况下，您可能希望为Board抽象出一个接口(或抽象类)，以允许多种实现。

就外部接口而言，您可能希望为TwoDBoard和ThreeDBoard提取一个Board接口(尽管上述方法都不适合)。

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