RE: Feb 29, 2000

[Scott Mildenberger <Smildenber@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

You have the hundreds rule backwards.  Every year divisible by 100 is not a
leap year, unless it is also divisible by 400 then it is a leap year.  Thus
2000 is a leap year but 1700, 1800, 1900, 2100 are not.  

Scott Mildenberger

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Teff [SMTP:jteff19@idt.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 1999 10:25 AM
> To:   Midrange Dot Com
> Subject:      Feb 29, 2000
> 
> 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.
> 
> Joe Teff
> 
> +---
> | 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
> +---
+---
| 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
+---