# Limited Opt Out of Orphan Rule

**URL:** <https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/limited-opt-out-of-orphan-rule/21709>\
**Category:** language design\
**Created:** [October 15, 2024, 1:08pm UTC](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/limited-opt-out-of-orphan-rule/21709 "2024-10-15T13:08:34Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 39

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![FZs](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/85f322/32.png) [@FZs](https://internals.rust-lang.org/u/FZs)\
**Post date:** [January 14, 2025, 8:58pm UTC](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/limited-opt-out-of-orphan-rule/21709/39 "2025-01-14T20:58:20Z")

</div>

Cross-posting my idea related to this topic:

> [@Named impls and impl generics](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/named-impls-and-impl-generics/22158):
>
> Continuing the discussion from [Limited Opt Out of Orphan Rule](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/limited-opt-out-of-orphan-rule/21709): What I've been thinking about recently (which is kinda related) is named impls with anonymous or explicit impl generics. This would be a very big change, so it is super unlikely to happen, but I thought I'd share it anyway, perhaps it's food for thought. The idea is the following: in addition to normal impls that would continue to be subject to the orphan rules, one could create named impls. (I'm going to use $ for the syntax he…

(it started out as a reply, but it got too long)

---

_[View the full topic](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/limited-opt-out-of-orphan-rule/21709)._