实现接口的每个类成员都导出一个语义上类似于VB的声明。NET接口声明被编写，例如:

Public Overridable Function Foo() As Integer Implements IFoo.Foo

尽管类成员的名称经常与接口成员的名称相匹配，而且类成员通常是public的，但这些都不是必需的。你也可以声明:

Protected Overridable Function IFoo_Foo() As Integer Implements IFoo.Foo

In which case the class and its derivatives would be allowed to access a class member using the name IFoo_Foo, but the outside world would only be able to access that particular member by casting to IFoo. Such an approach is often good in cases where an interface method will have specified behavior on all implementations, but useful behavior on only some [e.g. the specified behavior for a read-only collection's IList<T>.Add method is to throw NotSupportedException]. Unfortunately, the only proper way to implement the interface in C# is:

int IFoo.Foo() { return IFoo_Foo(); }
protected virtual int IFoo_Foo() { ... real code goes here ... }

没那么好。

引用Jeffrey Richter从CLR通过c#编写的 (EIMI的意思是显式接口方法实现)

It is critically important for you to understand some ramifications that exist when using EIMIs. And because of these ramifications, you should try to avoid EIMIs as much as possible. Fortunately, generic interfaces help you avoid EIMIs quite a bit. But there may still be times when you will need to use them (such as implementing two interface methods with the same name and signature). Here are the big problems with EIMIs: There is no documentation explaining how a type specifically implements an EIMI method, and there is no Microsoft Visual Studio IntelliSense support. Value type instances are boxed when cast to an interface. An EIMI cannot be called by a derived type.

如果您使用接口引用，ANY虚链可以在任何派生类上显式地替换为EIMI，并且当这种类型的对象强制转换到接口时，您的虚链将被忽略，并调用显式实现。这根本不是多态性。

EIMIs还可以用于从基本框架接口的实现(如IEnumerable<T>)中隐藏非强类型接口成员，这样你的类就不会直接公开非强类型方法，但在语法上是正确的。

前面的回答解释了为什么用c#显式地实现接口可能更可取(主要是出于形式上的原因)。然而，有一种情况下显式实现是强制的:为了避免在接口是非公共的，但实现类是公共的情况下泄露封装。

// Given:
internal interface I { void M(); }

// Then explicit implementation correctly observes encapsulation of I:
// Both ((I)CExplicit).M and CExplicit.M are accessible only internally.
public class CExplicit: I { void I.M() { } }

// However, implicit implementation breaks encapsulation of I, because
// ((I)CImplicit).M is only accessible internally, while CImplicit.M is accessible publicly.
public class CImplicit: I { public void M() { } }

上述泄漏是不可避免的，因为根据c#规范，“所有接口成员隐式地具有公共访问权限”。因此，隐式实现也必须提供公共访问，即使接口本身是内部的。

c#中的隐式接口实现非常方便。在实践中，许多程序员一直在使用它，而没有进一步考虑。这在最好的情况下会导致混乱的类型表面，在最坏的情况下会导致泄漏封装。其他语言，比如f#，甚至不允许这样做。

除了前面提到的其他原因外，这是指一个类实现了两个不同的接口，而这两个接口的属性/方法具有相同的名称和签名。

/// <summary>
/// This is a Book
/// </summary>
interface IBook
{
    string Title { get; }
    string ISBN { get; }
}

/// <summary>
/// This is a Person
/// </summary>
interface IPerson
{
    string Title { get; }
    string Forename { get; }
    string Surname { get; }
}

/// <summary>
/// This is some freaky book-person.
/// </summary>
class Class1 : IBook, IPerson
{
    /// <summary>
    /// This method is shared by both Book and Person
    /// </summary>
    public string Title
    {
        get
        {
            string personTitle = "Mr";
            string bookTitle = "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy";

            // What do we do here?
            return null;
        }
    }

    #region IPerson Members

    public string Forename
    {
        get { return "Lee"; }
    }

    public string Surname
    {
        get { return "Oades"; }
    }

    #endregion

    #region IBook Members

    public string ISBN
    {
        get { return "1-904048-46-3"; }
    }

    #endregion
}

这段代码编译和运行正常，但是Title属性是共享的。

显然，我们希望返回Title的值取决于我们是将Class1作为Book还是Person来处理。这时我们可以使用显式接口。

string IBook.Title
{
    get
    {
        return "The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy";
    }
}

string IPerson.Title
{
    get
    {
        return "Mr";
    }
}

public string Title
{
    get { return "Still shared"; }
}

注意，显式接口定义被推断为Public -因此您不能显式地将它们声明为Public(或其他)。

还要注意，您仍然可以拥有一个“共享”版本(如上所示)，但虽然这是可能的，但这样一个属性的存在是值得怀疑的。也许它可以用作Title的默认实现——这样就不必修改现有的代码来强制转换Class1到IBook或IPerson。

如果你没有定义“共享的”(隐式的)Title, Class1的消费者必须先显式地将Class1的实例转换为IBook或IPerson——否则代码将无法编译。

除了已经提供的优秀答案之外，还有一些情况需要显式实现，以便编译器能够找出需要什么。以IEnumerable<T>为例，它可能会经常出现。

这里有一个例子:

public abstract class StringList : IEnumerable<string>
{
    private string[] _list = new string[] {"foo", "bar", "baz"};

    // ...

    #region IEnumerable<string> Members
    public IEnumerator<string> GetEnumerator()
    {
        foreach (string s in _list)
        { yield return s; }
    }
    #endregion

    #region IEnumerable Members
    IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator()
    {
        return this.GetEnumerator();
    }
    #endregion
}

这里，IEnumerable<string>实现了IEnumerable，因此我们也需要。但是等等，泛型和普通版本都实现了具有相同方法签名的函数(c#对此忽略了返回类型)。这是完全合法的。编译器如何解决使用哪个?它迫使您最多只有一个隐式定义，然后它就可以解决它需要解决的任何问题。

ie.

StringList sl = new StringList();

// uses the implicit definition.
IEnumerator<string> enumerableString = sl.GetEnumerator();
// same as above, only a little more explicit.
IEnumerator<string> enumerableString2 = ((IEnumerable<string>)sl).GetEnumerator();
// returns the same as above, but via the explicit definition
IEnumerator enumerableStuff = ((IEnumerable)sl).GetEnumerator();

PS: IEnumerable的显式定义中有一点间接的作用，因为在函数内部，编译器知道变量的实际类型是StringList，这就是它解析函数调用的方式。实现一些抽象层，一些。net核心接口似乎已经积累起来了。

我发现自己最近更经常地使用显式实现，原因如下:

Always using explicit from the starts prevents having any naming collisions, in which explicit implementation would be required anyways Consumers are "forced" to use the interface instead of the implementation (aka not "programming to an implementation") which they should / must do anyways when you're using DI No "zombie" members in the implementations - removing any member from the interface declaration will result in compiler errors if not removed from the implementation too Default values for optional parameters, as well constraints on generic arguments are automatically adopted - no need to write them twice and keep them in sync