Re: Year 2000 is NOT a leap year

In article <5pv37f$8k5@mew.corp.sgi.com> pablo@sgi.com writes: > >In article <5pun4v$doe@cssun.mathcs.emory.edu>, johnl@informix.com writes: >> >> Where does your formula produce a different result (as opposed to >> computation time) from the one I gave? >> >> The answer is nowhere! >> >> See the attached code for a demonstration for the years 1753 through 9999. > >You're right. I misread your post... hey it happens. > >> Please get your facts straight before telling me to get mine sorted out. > >Why is it that you feel it necessary to take this tone with me? > >``It's nice to be important, but it's important to be nice.'' > Anonymous Gee, I didn't read into John's comment any sort of *tone*. He said please. Perhaps you are just being defensive because you made a very sloppy public mistake. I thought your comment about his code being "outta whack" wasn't very *nice*. Scott