Very Computer

Hi:

I've discovered an odd bug in Datebook version 10.1.

While the X display shows (correctly) Jan 01 2001 as a Monday,
if you print the calendar for Jan 2001, it shows as a Sunday.
The problem propagates to future months (Feb 2001 anyway,
which is as far as I've checked.)

Anyone got a fix?  (I run HPUX 10.20)

--
-----------------------------------------------+--------------------------+

'I speak for myself, not Nortel' - Me          +--------------------------+
'Verbing weirds language'    - Calvin      NORTEL Networks - Ottawa, Canada

I seems that Datebook does not correctly account for the fact that
every 400 years (including the last one) there is _not_ a leap year.

Mot being familiar with the application (and being suspicious of
GUI apps in general, that they are _not_ GUI _frontends_ of
command-line utilities, as they should be ;) I would say your
experience is a Y2K+1 problem and your solution limited to trying
to see if a bug-fix is available (have you contacted the author or
maintainer??) or that you use a different app to print out your
calendars.

As far as calendar apps are concerned, there are "a lot of fish in the sea."

-Brian

 >

 > > I've discovered an odd bug in Datebook version 10.1.
 > > While the X display shows (correctly) Jan 01 2001 as a Monday,
 > > if you print the calendar for Jan 2001, it shows as a Sunday.
 > > The problem propagates to future months (Feb 2001 anyway,
 > > which is as far as I've checked.)
 > > Anyone got a fix?  (I run HPUX 10.20)
 >
 > I seems that Datebook does not correctly account for the fact that
 > every 400 years (including the last one) there is _not_ a leap year.

On the contrary, it appears that Datebook didn't
realize that 2000 was a leap year.  Years divisible by 25 are
not leap years, except if they're also divisible by 16.
The more common statement is that a century year must
be divisible by 400 in order for it to be a leap year.

---Robert

 > ...

Just go to the command prompt and type;

cal

no problems :)

Bye,

L

Darn! Yes, that is what I meant.

-Brian

 >


 > > > ...
 > > On the contrary, it appears that Datebook didn't
 > > realize that 2000 was a leap year.  Years divisible by 25 are
 > > not leap years, except if they're also divisible by 16.
 > > The more common statement is that a century year must
 > > be divisible by 400 in order for it to be a leap year.
 >
 > Darn! Yes, that is what I meant.
 >
 > -Brian

Mark Rochkind, a Bell Labs guy and the creator of SCCS, in his
``Advanced UNIX Programming'', ISBN 0-13-011818-4, creates a program to
translate from YYMMDDhhmmss to internal system time since the Epoch.
He wants the program to apply for the interval Thu Jan  1 00:00:00
GMT 1970 until Tue Jan 19 03:14:07 GMT 2038.  He checks for a leap
year with the following:

    ``isleapyear = n ! =0 && n % 4 == 0; /* 2000 isn't */''

where n is the unique two digit year in that interval.The book was
written in 1985.  So it's not surprising that confusion about leap
year patterns existed way back before Y2K became an issue.  I wonder
how old ``Datebook'' is?

---Robert