|
 Lsp stéphane Ducasse 2005
|
| tarix | 08.08.2018 | | ölçüsü | 0,5 Mb. | | #61188 |
|
LSP Stéphane Ducasse --- 2005
A step deeper in Subtyping...
Liskov Substitution Principle (LSP) if for each object o1 of type S there is another object o2 of type T such that for all programs P defined in terms of T, the behavior of P is unchanged when o1 is substituted for o2, then S is a subtype of T.Barbara Liskov, "Data Abstraction and Hierarchy," SIGPLAN Notices, 23,5 (May 1988)
A Simple Bag We will define a Bag as an object that accepts two messages: put and count(send a-Bag 'put x)- puts an element x into the Bag, and
(send a-Bag 'count x)- gives the count of occurrences of x in the Bag (without changing a-Bag's state).
A Simple Set Likewise, a Set is defined as an object that accepts two messages:(send a-Set 'put x)- puts an element x into a-Set unless it was already there,
(send a-Set 'count x)- gives the count of occurrences of x in a-Set (which is always either 0 or 1).
A Bag Function (define (fnb bag) (send bag 'put 5) (send bag 'put 5) (send bag 'count 5))The behavior of this function can be summed as follows: given a Bag, the function adds two elements into it and returns (+ 2 (send orig-bag 'count 5))
The problem Technically you can pass to fnb a Set object as well. Just as a Bag, a Set object accepts messages put and count. However applying fnb to a Set object will break the function's post-conditionTherefore, passing a set object where a bag was expected changes behavior of some program. According to the Liskov Substitution Principle (LSP), a Set is not substitutable for a Bag -- a Set cannot be a subtype of a Bag.
Another function (define (fns set) (send set 'put 5) (send set 'count 5))The behavior of this function is: given a Set, the function adds an element into it and returns 1.
Problem two If you pass to this function a bag (which -- just as a set -- replies to messages put and count), the function fns may return a number greater than 1. This will break fns's contract, which promised always to return 1.
Finally Therefore, from the OO point of view, neither a Bag nor a Set are a subtype of the other. Bag and Set only appear similar. The interface or an implementation of a Bag and a Set appear to invite subclassing of a Set from a Bag (or vice versa). Doing so however will violate the LSP -- and you have to brace for very subtle errors. Sets and Bags are very simple types, far simpler than the ones you deal with in a production code. either. It's manual work -- you have to see the problem
Watch out Alas, LSP when considered from an OOP point of view is undecidable. You cannot count on a compiler for help in pointing out an error. You cannot rely on regression tests
In C++ class CBag { public: int size(void) const; // The number of elements in the bag virtual void put(const int elem); // Put an element into the bag int count(const int elem) const; // Count the number of occurrences // of a particular element in the bag // Return false if the element // didn't exist CollIterator begin(void) const; // Standard enumerator interface CollIterator end(void) const; CBag(void); virtual CBag * clone(void) const; // Make a copy of the bag private: // implementation details elided};
CSet class CSet : public CBag { public: bool memberof(const int elem) const { return count(elem) > 0; } // Overriding of CBag::put void put(const int elem) { if(!memberof(elem)) CBag::put(elem); } CSet * clone(void) const { CSet * new_set = new CSet(); *new_set += *this; return new_set; } CSet(void) {}};
Summary
Dostları ilə paylaş: |
|
|
