Unix C programming for finding file

[dawn]

Hi all,
I am now working on a C program under Unix.
The requirement for the program is that:
A file name is passed to program as a parameter. The program will
Find files under a specified directory. The matched file must have the
same content with the given file. It does not matter whether the
filenames are the same.

It is easy to find file that has the same name with given file, but
may be hard to find the files that with the same content. In my
knowledge, i give two solutions:

1) Go throught the directory and its sub direcotry tree, and when
meeting a file, Use the stand C library function to open that file and
the given file, and then compare those contents in buffers to see if
they are the same.

2) Go through the directory and its sub deirectroy tree, and when
meeting a file, execute the system shell command "diff" to compare the
two files to see if they are the same in content.
The two solutions seems not very smart and they are very running
slowly. I wonder if there is any library function that can compare two
file contents just like "strcmp" to compare two string.
Or maybe there are some other smart ways to achieve it.

Thank you for suggestions.

[dandelion]

"Dan Pop" <Da*****@cern.c h> wrote in message
news:co******** **@sunnews.cern .ch...

In <co***********@ pc-news.cogsci.ed. ac.uk> ri*****@cogsci. ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) writes:

<snip>
Without such authorities there is no proper definition of the English
language, which basically means that anyone is free to bastardise it in
any way he sees fit without being technically wrong.

Which is pretty much how the English language (and any other) came to be.
Long before there were any officials to call it technically wrong.

[Richard Tobin]

Ok, last try, then I give up.

In article <co**********@s unnews.cern.ch> , Dan Pop <Da*****@cern.c h> wrote:

If BSI adopted the respective ISO standard, it is "official" without
qualificatio n.
Official for those things that the BSI standard applies to. Not
everything is standardised.
You're invoking a read herring: I've made NO claims about the English
language at large, have I?
See below.
There are plenty of native English speakers using the incorrect spellings.
How about *their* usage? How can you convince them that they are wrong,
as long as they are as native English speakers as yourself?
Perhaps I could persuade them that they had misremembered it, by
showing them numerous examples of the usual spelling. Or perhaps
I wouldn't be able to convince them.
That, if one native English speaker uses the incorrect form of an
irregular verb, you have no basis to correct him: his usage is as good as
yours, in the absence of a higher regulatory authority.
You might as well say that there is no basis to say that someone with
measles is ill, in the absence of a higher authority to define
wellness. What is English can be determined by observation of English
speakers. (Not, of course, by observation of any one English
speaker.)

Well, perhaps you better define it. If you restricted it to "country
names in ISO conformant systems" then obviously you would be right.
But you referred to "the official English spellings" which is a rather
wider claim.

On the contrary, I've made an extremely specific claim:

"Romania" is the current official English spelling.

The widening I referred to was from "English in ISO conformant
systems" to "English", not from one word to the whole language.
Without such authorities there is no proper definition of the English
language
Bingo! There is indeed no proper definition of English, just what we
observe, and this is only a problem worth solving for certain specific
areas, such as interoperabilit y of coputer programs.
which basically means that anyone is free to bastardise it in
any way he sees fit without being technically wrong.

Good heavens. How could we possibly stand for that?

-- Richard

[Michael Wojcik]

In article <co***********@ pc-news.cogsci.ed. ac.uk>, ri*****@cogsci. ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) writes:

In article <co**********@s unnews.cern.ch> , Dan Pop <Da*****@cern.c h> wrote:

Then, on what basis are considered spellings like "recieve", "seperate"
or "tomarrow" incorrect?
Usage. Correct English is determined by the usage of English
speakers.

Or more precisely, by the dominant usage in the language-use context.
Usage varies, of course. Some forms predominate, due to various
factors such as popularity, use by the politically powerful classes,
presence in various media, and so forth. But they predominate only
in specific contexts; in others, regional or other variations may be
more influential in determining what a given speaker or author and
audience will consider "correct".

Of course, many usages get codified, and many users like to point to
such codices as authorities, but they're no more authoritative than
users grant. They have no special status.
As a native English speaker, I admit no other authority on the matter.

A reasonable position, and the right one in my view, though of course
any English speaker can choose to defer to some language "authority" .
What they can't do is demonstrate that it applies, or should apply,
to all English speakers.

Who's maintaining the list of irregular verbs
and who's giving that organisation the authority to do so?

No-one of course.

Well, there are certainly people who maintain such lists, such as
the authors of English grammar and usage primers. Whatever authority
they have comes solely from the decisions made to publish and purchase
those books.

That said, I imagine I'd consider ISO 3166 a standard for English
spelling of country names, though I'd want to read it first before I
committed to that position. And clearly it is "official" in a useful
sense. However, I wouldn't call it an "official English standard";
I'd call it an "official standard for spellings (of country names) in
English". That may seem like a fine distinction, but I think it's
significant, as it implies that its office pertains to certain
spellings rather than to English per se.

--
Michael Wojcik mi************@ microfocus.com

I would never understand our engineer. But is there anything in this world
that *isn't* made out of words? -- Tawada Yoko (trans. Margaret Mitsutani)

[Dan Pop]

In <41************ ***********@dre ader13.news.xs4 all.nl> "dandelion" <da*******@mead ow.net> writes:

"Dan Pop" <Da*****@cern.c h> wrote in message
news:co******* ***@sunnews.cer n.ch...

In <co***********@ pc-news.cogsci.ed. ac.uk> ri*****@cogsci. ed.ac.uk

(Richard Tobin) writes:

<snip>

Without such authorities there is no proper definition of the English
language, which basically means that anyone is free to bastardise it in
any way he sees fit without being technically wrong.

Which is pretty much how the English language (and any other) came to be.
Long before there were any officials to call it technically wrong.

This is also true for everything that eventually got standardised.
Anything wrong with having standards?

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de
Currently looking for a job in the European Union

[Dan Pop]

In <co**********@p c-news.cogsci.ed. ac.uk> ri*****@cogsci. ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) writes:

Ok, last try, then I give up.

In article <co**********@s unnews.cern.ch> , Dan Pop <Da*****@cern.c h> wrote:

If BSI adopted the respective ISO standard, it is "official" without
qualification .
Official for those things that the BSI standard applies to. Not
everything is standardised.

Country names are standardised, so the official English spelling is
"Romania", which is the starting point of this discussion.

There are plenty of native English speakers using the incorrect spellings.
How about *their* usage? How can you convince them that they are wrong,
as long as they are as native English speakers as yourself?

Perhaps I could persuade them that they had misremembered it, by
showing them numerous examples of the usual spelling. Or perhaps
I wouldn't be able to convince them.

That's why a language authority is a good thing. Languages having such
an authority don't have three different spellings for "Romania" :-)

That, if one native English speaker uses the incorrect form of an
irregular verb, you have no basis to correct him: his usage is as good as
yours, in the absence of a higher regulatory authority.

You might as well say that there is no basis to say that someone with
measles is ill, in the absence of a higher authority to define
wellness.

As long as there is a higher authority to define measles as an illness,
you don't need anything more.
What is English can be determined by observation of English
speakers. (Not, of course, by observation of any one English
speaker.)
The result of such an observation is a complete mess. If you don't
believe me, go and rent a copy of "My Fair Lady" :-)

Non-authoritative as they are, dictionaries are still the only reliable
source of information about what is English. Which is why it is downright
stupid not to have an authoritative dictionary of the English language.

Well, perhaps you better define it. If you restricted it to "country
names in ISO conformant systems" then obviously you would be right.
But you referred to "the official English spellings" which is a rather
wider claim.

On the contrary, I've made an extremely specific claim:

"Romania" is the current official English spelling.

The widening I referred to was from "English in ISO conformant
systems" to "English", not from one word to the whole language.

"English in ISO conformant systems" doesn't make much sense to me.
You have English in an official context and colloquial English.
In the former, there is only one spelling for Romania, in the latter there
are three. Feel free to prove me wrong.

Without such authorities there is no proper definition of the English
language

Bingo! There is indeed no proper definition of English, just what we
observe,

Then why do people buy and use dictionaries? Why do they bother inquiring
about the spelling of one word or another?
and this is only a problem worth solving for certain specific
areas, such as interoperabilit y of coputer programs.

It is a problem anywhere precise communication is important.

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de
Currently looking for a job in the European Union

[Michael Wojcik]

In article <co**********@s unnews.cern.ch> , Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:

Without such authorities there is no proper definition of the English
language, which basically means that anyone is free to bastardise it in
any way he sees fit without being technically wrong.

And indeed that is precisely the situation, and has been for the
entire time the English language has existed. So what?

--
Michael Wojcik mi************@ microfocus.com

[Dan Pop]

In <cp*********@ne ws3.newsguy.com > mw*****@newsguy .com (Michael Wojcik) writes:

In article <co**********@s unnews.cern.ch> , Da*****@cern.ch (Dan Pop) writes:

Without such authorities there is no proper definition of the English
language, which basically means that anyone is free to bastardise it in
any way he sees fit without being technically wrong.

And indeed that is precisely the situation, and has been for the
entire time the English language has existed. So what?

So the poor usage of (especially written) English among its native
speakers. If their usage is as good as anyone else's, in the absence of
any authoritative reference, why should they bother to improve it?

So the confusion among the people trying to learn English as a foreign
language and being exposed to multiple spellings of the same word, some
accepted by the dictionaries, some not, but none of them incorrect in the
absence of an authoritative reference.

So the proliferation of multiple spellings for the same word, which
is hardly a good thing. So the creation of unneeded words, like
"irregardle ss".

Dan
--
Dan Pop
DESY Zeuthen, RZ group
Email: Da*****@ifh.de
Currently looking for a job in the European Union