• Subject: Re: Feb 29, 2000
  • From: Gwecnal@xxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1999 17:13:50 EDT

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
+---

This thread ...

Follow-Ups:

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 here. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].