Mail Archives: djgpp/1997/08/06/08:28:47
On Fri, 1 Aug 1997, Lawrence Kirby wrote:
> In article <33DFD749 DOT 2AD2 AT ici DOT net>
> carla AT ici DOT net "Alicia Carla Longstreet" writes:
>
> >It is a bit closer to 365.246 (Which is why we do NOT have a leap year
> >on years that are divisable by 400.
>
> Years divisible by 400 are leap years (which is why 2000 is a leap year).
> It is years divisible by 100 (other than those divisible by 400) that are
> not leap years.
Correct. Check out comp.database.informix archives where a long
discussion of leap year calculation just finished last week.
Art S. Kagel, kagel AT bloomberg DOT com
- Raw text -