Re: Year 2000 is NOT a leap year

Bill Bertovich wrote: > > If the year can be divided evenly by 4, then the year is a leap year ... > Moffat wrote in article <33C29E37.5C51@email.mot.com>... > >This is to the person who has an informix 2 legacy system. > > The year 2000 is not a leap year. > > WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG!!!!!!!! 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. Hence 1700, 1800, and 1900 WERE NOT leap years since they violate 2 above and do not satisfy 3, while the year 2000 WILL BE A LEAP YEAR since 1 and 3 are satisfied. 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 ...... Art S. Kagel