A square is a rectangle where the width equals the height. If the square sets two different sizes for the width and height it violates the square invariant. This is worked around by introducing side effects. But if the rectangle had a setSize(height, width) with precondition 0 < height and 0 < width. The derived subtype method requires height == width; a stronger precondition (and that violates lsp). This shows that though square is a rectangle it is not a valid subtype because the precondition is strengthened. The work around (in general a bad thing) cause a side effect and this weakens the post condition (which violates lsp). setWidth on the base has post condition 0 < width. The derived weakens it with height == width.

因此，可调整大小的正方形不是可调整大小的矩形。

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. [...]

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。

它指出，如果C是E的子类型，则E可以替换为C类型的对象，而不会改变或破坏程序的行为。简单地说，派生类应该可以替代它们的父类。例如，如果一个农民的儿子是农民，那么他可以代替他的父亲工作，但如果一个农民的儿子是板球运动员，那么他就不能代替他的父亲工作。

违反的例子:

public class Plane{

  public void startEngine(){}      

}        
public class FighterJet extends Plane{}
    
public class PaperPlane extends Plane{}

在给定的例子中，fighter和PaperPlane类都扩展了包含startEngine()方法的Plane类。所以很明显，战斗机可以启动引擎，但纸飞机不能，所以它破坏LSP。

PaperPlane类虽然扩展了Plane类，但应该可以替代Plane类，但它不是Plane实例可以被替换的合格实体，因为纸飞机不能启动引擎，因为它没有引擎。好的例子是，

受人尊敬的例子:

public class Plane{ 
} 
public class RealPlane{

  public void startEngine(){} 

}
public class FighterJet extends RealPlane{} 
public class PaperPlane extends Plane{}

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。

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。