Re: Definition of a Leap Year????
Date: 1997/07/01
Message-ID: <01bc8657$d815b7f0$0101a8c0_at_bigtower>#1/1
[Quoted] Tom Cooke <tom_at_tomcooke.demon.co.uk> wrote in article
<gQdvsAACABuzEwR0_at_tomcooke.demon.co.uk>...
> Eh? Check out any Year 2000 White Paper... My definition is
>
> 1. If it is divisible by four, it is a leap year
>
> Unless (2) it is divisible by 100 in which case it is _not_
>
> UNLESS (3) it is divisible by 1000 in which case it IS! Hence 29th
> February 2000 exists!
>
> Anybody want to differ?
YES, replace 1000 by 400 and it is correct (like mentiond earlier in
this article by a other person).
Check out the definition of the Gregorian calendar. The Year 2000
White Paper must be written by persons which don't care about the
year 2400 (we're all dead at this time...) So for all of us it is
quite simple to choos only the first of your rules, because it is
correct (in any interpretation) until Feb 28th 2100... So a long time
to corret a probably false program...
Michael Karg Received on Tue Jul 01 1997 - 00:00:00 CEST