Re: Another thing about 2000

Subject: Re: Another thing about 2000
From: Richard Mateosian <srm -at- C2 -dot- ORG>
Date: Thu, 1 Feb 1996 08:59:20 -0800

>Simply to avoid patching so many programs, I suppose 2000
>will indeed be a leap year.

It will indeed be a leap year -- not because of programmer laziness, but
because years divisible by 400 are leap years. This is a tiny correction to
balance the overcorrection of not making leap years out of years divisible
by 100. ...RM

Richard Mateosian http://www.c2.org/~srm/ President, Berkeley STC
Freelance Technical Writer srm -at- c2 -dot- org Review Editor, IEEE Micro


Previous by Author: Eric's request for change -- a new writer's viewpoint
Next by Author: Re: Writing contest (technical subject)
Previous by Thread: Re: Another thing about 2000
Next by Thread: Another thing about 2000


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

Sponsored Ads


Sponsored Ads