Re: Feb 29, 2000

If it's got Feb 29 in it it's a leap year to me.

Gwecnal@aol.com wrote:

> 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 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
+---