next century

Subject: next century
From: scot <scot -at- HCI -dot- COM -dot- AU>
Date: Fri, 2 Feb 1996 15:35:38 +1100

>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?

Ahh, I was taught that only years that ARE divisible by 400 are leap years.
So 2000 -is- a leap year (last one was 1600, except I don't think this
calender was in use then).

HCI Consulting, GPO Box 4846 Sydney NSW 2001 Australia.
#include std.disclaimer

Previous by Author: Tech Writers: Strictly Tech? - Reply
Next by Author: state names
Previous by Thread: Responses on Optimum Page Size Question
Next by Thread: Re: Use of "that"

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

Sponsored Ads