Re: Feb 29, 2000

In a message dated 99-09-29 13:30:09 EDT, you write:

> I thought the leap year rule stated that any year evenly divisible
>  by 4 was a leap year unless it was also evenly divisible by 400
>  and then it wasn't. That would make 1700, 1800 and 1900 leap
>  years, but 2000 wouldn't be. Yet everywhere I look, it shows a
>  Feb 29th in 2000 (calendars, PIM software, OS/400 date data
>  types, etc). I seem remember a thread on this list a while back
>  and it was stated that 2000 wasn't a leap year. Can anyone set
>  me straight here.
>  

The rule is any year evenly divisible by 4 is a leap year unless it is also 
evenly divisible by 100 and then it isn't UNLESS it is also divisible by 400, 
in which case it is.  That would make 1700, 1800 and 1900 not leap years, but 
2000 would be.

HTH, Lance
+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---