Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!njin!princeton!jonlab!jon
From: jon@jonlab.UUCP (Jon H. LaBadie)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: Why does "cal 9 1752" produce incorrect results?
Summary: why is +j "refered" to as the julian date?
Message-ID: <890@jonlab.UUCP>
Date: 30 Nov 90 19:14:24 GMT
References: <3313@ns-mx.uiowa.edu> <614@svcs1.UUCP>
Organization: 4455 Province Line Rd., Princeton, NJ 08540
Lines: 27

In article <614@svcs1.UUCP>, rls@svcs1.UUCP (Bob Strait) writes:
> khenry@umaxc.weeg.uiowa.edu (Ken Henry) writes:
> 
> > Does anybody know why "cal 9 1752" produce incorrect results?
> 
> Much depends on what you mean by "incorrect."  September, 1752,
> was when the English-speaking world adopted the Gregorian
> calendar, a couple of centuries after Pope Gregory and the
> Roman Empire converted.  By that time the Julian calendar was
> eleven days out of sync with the Gregorian calendar so they
> simply dropped the 11 days.  Thus, the next day after
> September 2, 1752, (Julian) became September 14, 1752, (Gregorian).

Except for thinking the naming of the calendars was reversed,
I have no quibble with Bob's answer.  And I have no authority
to support my (previously wrong?) idea.

Bob's answer does lead me to ask a question however.  I have
fequently heard the "+j" option of the date command (which outputs
the day of the year - 1 to 366) referred to the "Julian" date.

Where did this nomenclature come from? 

Jon
-- 
Jon LaBadie
{att, princeton, bcr, attmail!auxnj}!jonlab!jon