Re: Another thing about 2000

Subject: Re: Another thing about 2000
From: Stan Radomski <radomski -at- PUBS16 -dot- SI -dot- COM>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 07:01:00 EST

> The addition of an extra day (oops, there's a superfluous modifier) every
> four years to correct for the fact that a day is slightly less than 24
> hours long results in a tiny overcorrection. So supposedly each year
> that is divisible by 400 is NOT supposed to be a leap year. In spite of
> this, a zillion programs have been written to use the standard leap year
> algorithm. Simply to avoid patching so many programs, I suppose 2000
> will indeed be a leap year. Have you heard anything definite?


I saved an insert from a desk calendar a few years back and there are a few
interesting paragraphs about the end of the century and leap years. Here is
a paraphrase of what it says about leap years:

Every four years a day is added as February 29.
Further correction is required so the day is ommitted at the end of each
century (years ending in 00).
This is still not perfect. In all years evenly divisible by 400 an exception
is made and the leap year remains, therefore the year 2000 is a leap year.

radomski -at- si -dot- com

My employer didn't say this...I did.

Previous by Author: Tools: Microsoft Exchange
Next by Author: Re: Usage of "that"
Previous by Thread: Framemaker in OZ
Next by Thread: Re: Another thing about 2000

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads

Sponsored Ads