Re: Leap Year

aland@informix.com (Colonel Panic) wrote: >In article <DnKBo2.1yy@cix.compulink.co.uk>, >Malcolm Weallans <onlinedbc@cix.compulink.co.uk> wrote: >>It was officially stated by the BBC - not known for their gaffes - that >>this is the last leap year for 8 years. So year 2000 is not going to be >>a leap year. >Sorry, Malcolm. The BBC is no less fallible than US news services in this >regard. 2000 is a leap year. >>I attempted to check this out using an encyclopeadia but it didn't say >>anyhting beyond 400 year boundaries, and other people are quoting a rule >>about the millennium. If the whole computer industry has got it wrong >>are we all going to have some fun in 4 years time? >What a lame encyclopaedia! >-- >Alan Denney aland@informix.com >"You know 1994 is a leap year; there is a 29th of February this year. > People with digital watches are in heap big trouble, because there's > no way in Hell they'll know about it." > -- Rush Limbaugh 1/03/94 Extract from the Book of Calendars (Frank Parise.ed. 1982, page 295): -- Note that the years 1600, 1700, 1800 and 1900 were leap years in the Julian Calendar. In the Gregorian calendar the year 1600 was a leap year, but the years 1700, 1800, and 1900 were not. The year 2000 will be. The century ends with 00, not 99. The new century begins with the year 01.