这与Lawrence Wenham的回答相似，但取决于您的用例，这可能是一种改进，也可能不是——您不需要setter。

public interface IPerson {
  int GetAge();
  string GetName();
}

public interface IGetPerson {
  IPerson GetPerson();
}

public static class IGetPersonAdditions {
  public static int GetAgeViaPerson(this IGetPerson getPerson) { // I prefer to have the "ViaPerson" in the name in case the object has another Age property.
    IPerson person = getPerson.GetPersion();
    return person.GetAge();
  }
  public static string GetNameViaPerson(this IGetPerson getPerson) {
    return getPerson.GetPerson().GetName();
  }
}

public class Person: IPerson, IGetPerson {
  private int Age {get;set;}
  private string Name {get;set;}
  public IPerson GetPerson() {
    return this;
  }
  public int GetAge() {  return Age; }
  public string GetName() { return Name; }
}

现在，任何知道如何获取一个人的对象都可以实现IGetPerson，并且它将自动拥有GetAgeViaPerson()和GetNameViaPerson()方法。从这一点开始，基本上所有的Person代码都进入IGetPerson，而不是IPerson，除了新的ivars，它必须同时进入IGetPerson和IPerson。在使用这样的代码时，你不需要关心你的IGetPerson对象本身是不是一个IPerson。

如果X继承了Y，这有两个正交的效果:

Y将为X提供默认功能，因此X的代码只需要包含与Y不同的东西。 几乎在任何需要用Y的地方，都可以用X代替。

Although inheritance provides for both features, it is not hard to imagine circumstances where either could be of use without the other. No .net language I know of has a direct way of implementing the first without the second, though one could obtain such functionality by defining a base class which is never used directly, and having one or more classes that inherit directly from it without adding anything new (such classes could share all their code, but would not be substitutable for each other). Any CLR-compliant language, however, will allow the use of interfaces which provide the second feature of interfaces (substitutability) without the first (member reuse).

Multiple inheritance is one of those things that generally causes more problems than it solves. In C++ it fits the pattern of giving you enough rope to hang yourself, but Java and C# have chosen to go the safer route of not giving you the option. The biggest problem is what to do if you inherit multiple classes that have a method with the same signature that the inheritee doesn't implement. Which class's method should it choose? Or should that not compile? There is generally another way to implement most things that doesn't rely on multiple inheritance.

考虑只使用组合而不是尝试模拟多重继承。你可以使用接口来定义组成组合的类，例如:isteable暗示了方向盘类型的属性，IBrakable暗示了BrakePedal类型的属性，等等。

一旦你完成了这些，你可以使用c# 3.0中添加的扩展方法功能来进一步简化对这些隐含属性的方法调用，例如:

public interface ISteerable { SteeringWheel wheel { get; set; } }

public interface IBrakable { BrakePedal brake { get; set; } }

public class Vehicle : ISteerable, IBrakable
{
    public SteeringWheel wheel { get; set; }

    public BrakePedal brake { get; set; }

    public Vehicle() { wheel = new SteeringWheel(); brake = new BrakePedal(); }
}

public static class SteeringExtensions
{
    public static void SteerLeft(this ISteerable vehicle)
    {
        vehicle.wheel.SteerLeft();
    }
}

public static class BrakeExtensions
{
    public static void Stop(this IBrakable vehicle)
    {
        vehicle.brake.ApplyUntilStop();
    }
}


public class Main
{
    Vehicle myCar = new Vehicle();

    public void main()
    {
        myCar.SteerLeft();
        myCar.Stop();
    }
}

我知道我知道 尽管这是不允许的，但有时候你确实需要它，比如:

class a {}
class b : a {}
class c : b {}

就我而言，我想这样做 class b: Form(对，就是windows.forms) 类c: b {}

因为有一半的函数是相同的，你必须重写它们

由于多重继承是不好的(它使源代码更加复杂)，c#没有直接提供这样的模式。但有时候拥有这种能力是有帮助的。

c#和。net CLR还没有实现MI，因为他们还没有总结出它将如何在c#、VB.net和其他语言之间互操作，而不是因为“这会使源代码更复杂”。

MI是一个有用的概念，未回答的问题是:“当你在不同的超类中有多个公共基类时，你该怎么办?”

Perl是我使用过的唯一一种MI可以很好地工作的语言。. net可能有一天会引入它，但现在还没有，CLR已经支持MI，但正如我所说的，目前还没有针对它的语言结构。

在此之前，你会被代理对象和多个接口所困扰:(