Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!mcsun!hp4nl!sci.kun.nl!atcmpe!jc
From: jc@atcmp.nl (Jan Christiaan van Winkel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.handhelds
Subject: Re: Leap Years
Message-ID: <648@atcmpe.atcmp.nl>
Date: 11 Aug 90 22:17:06 GMT
References: <6758.26c2a07b@jetson.uh.edu>
Organization: AT Computing, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Lines: 26

From article <6758.26c2a07b@jetson.uh.edu>, by math1i7@jetson.uh.edu:
) In article <31210047@hpcvia.CV.HP.COM>, scottb@hpcvia.CV.HP.COM (Scott_Burke) writes:
)> 
)> Would someone please verify that I have the leap year algorithm correct:
)> 
)>   February has 28 days UNLESS the year is divisible by   4, in which case
)>   February has 29 days UNLESS the year is divisible by 100, in which case
)>   February has 28 days UNLESS the year is divisible by 400, in which case
)>   February has 29 days.
) 
) Scott, I have never heard about the 100 and 400 year rules... I had always
) assumed that:
) 	IF 0 year 4 MOD == THEN 28 ELSE 29 END
) Are the 100 and 400 year rules there to correct for the fraction of
) a second off each year is from a "true" 365 or 366 days?
) 
) Gordon
Scott was right. I.e. 1904, 1908, 1912,... were leappyears,
1900, 2100, 2200, 2300 are not but 2000 is. (Ever wonder why 
electronic watches keep the correct date until 2099...:-)
JC
-- 
___  __  ____________________________________________________________________
   |/  \   Jan Christiaan van Winkel      Tel: +31 80 566880  jc@atcmp.nl
   |       AT Computing   P.O. Box 1428   6501 BK Nijmegen    The Netherlands
__/ \__/ ____________________________________________________________________