Re: Year 2000 is NOT a leap year

In article <33CD07C1.79B@bloomberg.com>, Art S. Kagel <kagel@bloomberg.com> wrote: > >As already posted in code, a year is a leap year if and only if: > >1) the year number is divisible by 4 AND >2) the year number is NOT divisible by 100 UNLESS >3) the year number IS ALSO divisible by 400. > [...] > >This is ABSOLUTELY the correct formula for all dates following the last >calendar adjustments in the 1700's. (I do not remember the exact year >but wasn't it George Washington's birth year?) I have been coding date >and time logic for 16 years and researched it thoroughly when I started >out. Trust me and Jonathon Leffler and ...... Well, not ABSOLUTELY. Higher-order terms (i.e. exceptions to the "divisble by 400" rule) will eventually be needed to keep the calendar synchronised with the seasons (which is what the whole thing is about anyway). Of course, that next term may well be very far out (eg (3) might become "UNLESS the year number IS ALSO divisible by 400 but not by 25,000" or something) and so not of exactly pressing concern to anyone around today. - Paul (his opinions only, etc etc)