Re: Definition of a Leap Year????

Errrgh. I'll check my sources.

In article <01bc8657$d815b7f0$0101a8c0_at_bigtower>, Michael Karg <karg_at_uranus.tuwien.ac.at> writes
>
>
>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
 

-- 
Tom Cooke