Re: Re[2]: Leap Year

I got this from this group a while back... sorry I didn't save the author's name case when year mod 400 = 0 #(2000,2400...) #its a leap year when year mod 100 = 0 (1900,1800,2100) #its NOT a leap year) when year mod 4 = 0 (1992, 1996) #its a leap year otherwise #its NOT a leap year end case Sean.Kedney@ccmail.irs.gov wrote: : The actual scheme is we skip leep year on years that are divisible by : 100, but NOT on years that are divisible by 400. Therefore the year : 1900 was not a leap year, but 2000 is, and 2100 will not be. : : Hope this helps : : Sean Kedney : Skedney@aol.com : ______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________ : Subject: Re: Leap Year : Author: informix-list-owner@rmy.emory.edu at Internet : Date: 3/1/96 07:58 : 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. However - SCO UNIX, INFORMIX, and even Microsoft allow the : : date to be set to Feb-29 2000. And if Bill Gates has decreed it I guess : : it must be right!!! : : : 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? : : The BBC (and other people) are right. We skip leap years on the millennia : to fix what we screwed up by using the leap year.