Just refuse to use UHC until it conforms.  One can refuse to use GHC libraries that use extensions as well for similar reasons.  I always think twice when I see something that isn't Haskell 98 in my stack.

Anything that doesn't conform completely to Haskell 98 can effectively be considered not Haskell 98 at all (all or nothing mentality), if you want to be really strict.

The fact is we have a choice... I won't tell people not to implement things in a way I don't like, I'll just look at it and decide whether I care to use it or not.  

As a result, UHC is not something I care to use, though I'm sure it's interesting for those who are using it.  

If I cared enough, and I don't, and the UHC sources are licensed in a way permitting so, I could make a Haskell 98 conforming version of it, and fork it myself.

Dave

On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 4:31 AM, Lennart Augustsson <lennart@augustsson.net> wrote:
I don't think that other languages failing should be an excuse for
Haskell to be equally bad.

On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 1:23 PM, Miguel Mitrofanov
<miguelimo38@yandex.ru> wrote:
> Well, the problem is that every implementor does choose a subset of standart
> to implement.
>
> It's much worse in JavaScript - essential features working differently in
> Internet Explorer, Firefox, Opera, and Safari, and sometimes they even
> differ between versions; Web programmers still manage. (n+k)-patterns are
> nothing compared to that.
>
> Lennart Augustsson wrote on 20.04.2009 15:17:
>>
>> If every implementor got to choose what subset of the standard to
>> implement that all code would have have to written in the implemented
>> intersection.  I think that's a terrible idea.
>> The Haskell98 standard was set so there would be a baseline that
>> people could rely on.
>>
>> When I implemented Haskell (both times) there were odds and ends that
>> I really hated (some of those feelings have changed), but I did it
>> anyway.
>>
>>  -- Lennart
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Bulat Ziganshin
>> <bulat.ziganshin@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Jon,
>>>
>>> Monday, April 20, 2009, 1:59:07 PM, you wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's not an implementor's place to make such decisions --
>>>> they can legitimately say "this feature sucks" and tell the
>>>> next Haskell committee so. If they care enough about it,
>>>> they can lobby or get on that next committee, but the
>>>> arguments for n+k patterns /in Haskell98/ were done long
>>>> ago.
>>>
>>> if you really believe in that you said, you can spend your own time
>>> adding its support :)  i never seen n+k patterns in real code so i
>>> understand developers that don't want to waste time just to compliant
>>> standard even if their efforts will be never really used
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Best regards,
>>>  Bulat                            mailto:Bulat.Ziganshin@gmail.com
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>>> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
>>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
>> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
>> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe