fearless> Has this been thrashed out before? It's a new one to me
fearless> I've just learned that the majority of computer systems
fearless> consider 2000 to be a leap year, which surprised me
It surprises *me* greatly that so many people are confused by this.
fearless> I always thought years divisible by 400 were not leap
fearless> years, even though they are divisible by 4.
Years divisible by 100 are not leap years, even though they are
divisible by 4, *unless* they are also divisible by 400, in which case
they *are* leap years.
fearless> This is a bit of a worry, because my boss has decided to
fearless> support "2000 is a leap year" because he reckons that's
fearless> what everyone else is doing.
fearless> Do clock people think 2000 is a leap year?
fearless> Do computer people think 2000 is a leap year?
fearless> Irrespective of who's "right" and who's "wrong", has
fearless> everyone agreed on which it will be?
comp.unix.programmer FAQ: see <URL: http://www.erlenstar.demon.co.uk/unix/>
or <URL: http://www.whitefang.com/unix/>