Re: Leap Year..................!

Posted in 1998

Albert Landeck — Thu, 03 Sep 1998 22:59:35 GMT — source: Informix-list mailing list archive (1991-1998)

Ooops, Richard Thomas posts the correct values. 4/100/400 not 4/400/1000 as I posted. Goes to show what happens when you post without checking notes... :-) Al Landeck On Thu, 03 Sep 1998 22:56:41 GMT, landeck@informix.com (Albert Landeck) wrote: >Actually, the year 2000 IS a leap year. The rule about leap years >goes: > >A leap year in every year divisible by 4 >except years divisible by 400 >except years divisible by 1000 (it is 1000 and not 2000? right...) > >As a result the year 2000 is a leap year. > >Besides, February wouldn't have 30 days in any case, the choice is 28 >or 29, remember? > >Al Landeck >DataBlade Engineering Group >Informix Software > >On Thu, 3 Sep 1998 12:52:50 +0300, "Infodata" ><infodata@batelco.com.bh> wrote: > >> >>Dear Informix user, >> >>I heard that year 2000 is not a leapyear and the February 2000 is having 30 >>days Is Informix is going to solve this problem in the newer versions or >>is it only a Myth? >> >>regards >> >> >> >> >> >