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。

一些补充:我想知道为什么没有人写基类的不变量、前提条件和后置条件，这些派生类必须遵守。 对于派生类D来说，基类B完全可转换，类D必须服从某些条件:

基类的内变体必须由派生类保留 派生类不能加强基类的先决条件 派生类不能削弱基类的后置条件。

因此派生类必须知道基类施加的上述三个条件。因此，子类型的规则是预先确定的。这意味着，只有当子类型遵守某些规则时，才应该遵守'IS A'关系。这些规则，以不变量、前置条件和后置条件的形式，应该由正式的“设计契约”来决定。

关于这个问题的进一步讨论可以在我的博客:利斯科夫替换原理

LSP说“对象应该被它们的子类型替换”。 另一方面，这一原则指向

子类永远不应该破坏父类的类型定义。

通过以下示例，可以更好地理解LSP。

没有太阳能发电:

public interface CustomerLayout{

    public void render();
}


public FreeCustomer implements CustomerLayout {
     ...
    @Override
    public void render(){
        //code
    }
}


public PremiumCustomer implements CustomerLayout{
    ...
    @Override
    public void render(){
        if(!hasSeenAd)
            return; //it isn`t rendered in this case
        //code
    }
}

public void renderView(CustomerLayout layout){
    layout.render();
}

LSP修复:

public interface CustomerLayout{
    public void render();
}


public FreeCustomer implements CustomerLayout {
     ...
    @Override
    public void render(){
        //code
    }
}


public PremiumCustomer implements CustomerLayout{
    ...
    @Override
    public void render(){
        if(!hasSeenAd)
            showAd();//it has a specific behavior based on its requirement
        //code
    }
}

public void renderView(CustomerLayout layout){
    layout.render();
}

简单来说，LSP是指同一超类的对象应该能够在不破坏任何东西的情况下相互交换。

例如，如果我们有一个从Animal类派生的Cat和Dog类，那么任何使用Animal类的函数都应该能够使用Cat或Dog，并且行为正常。

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. [...]

我建议您阅读这篇文章:违反利斯科夫替换原则(LSP)。

你可以在那里找到一个解释，什么是利斯科夫替换原则，一般线索帮助你猜测你是否已经违反了它，一个方法的例子，将帮助你使你的类层次结构更安全。