Hugs vs GHC (again) was: Re: Some random newbie questions

Hi,

Looks like Hugs and GHC are being compared again ;)

I am just interested to know, what is the current status of Unicode 
support in GHC? Hugs has had it for about a year (or more, in CVS) at 
least at the level of recognizing character categories and simple case 
conversions based on the Unicode database files. Also UTF-8 or 
locale-based I/O encoding conversion to internal Unicode is available. 
Does GHC has similar support?

Some time ago (about 1.5 years) I tried to play with Unicode I/O in GHC, 
and it looked like it did not have much Unicode support back then (at 
least on I/O level). Has anything progressed in this regard since then?

Most of this list subscribers seem to be GHC users, so can anybody answer?

BTW when answering the original post (brief quote below) different 
aspects were mentioned, but not internationalization ones. Is it really 
not that important?

Dimitry Golubovsky
Middletown, CT

Benjamin Pierce wrote:


> * What are the relative advantages of Hugs and GHC, beyond the obvious (Hugs
>   is smaller and easier for people not named Simon to modify, while GHC is a
>   real compiler and has the most up-to-date hacks to the type checker)?  Do
>   people generally use one or the other for everything, or are they similar
>   enough to use Hugs at some moments and GHC at others?