• Subject: Re: [Feb 29, 2000]
  • From: "R. Bruce Hoffman, Jr." <rbruceh@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 15:17:19 -0400

Dan wrote:
> Joe,
> Almost.  2000 _is_ a leap year.  1600 was a leap year.  1700, 1800, 1900 were
> _not_ leap years.
> "Joe Teff" <jteff19@idt.net> wrote:
> > 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 actual rule is yes for 4, no for 100, but yes again for 400.

R. Bruce Hoffman, Jr.
 -- IBM Certified AS/400 Professional System Administrator
 -- IBM Certified AS/400 Professional Network Administrator

"The sum of all human knowledge is a fixed constant.
    It's the population that keeps growing!"
| 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 thread ...


Follow On AppleNews
Return to Archive home page | Return to MIDRANGE.COM home page

This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2019 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].