Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!gatech!gitpyr!roy
From: roy@gitpyr.gatech.EDU (Roy Mongiovi)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: Calculating the length of a year
Message-ID: <2642@gitpyr.gatech.EDU>
Date: Sat, 15-Nov-86 22:47:52 EST
Article-I.D.: gitpyr.2642
Posted: Sat Nov 15 22:47:52 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 16-Nov-86 20:03:22 EST
References: <53@vianet.UUCP> <267@bms-at.UUCP> <54@vianet.UUCP>
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta
Lines: 29

In article <54@vianet.UUCP>, devine@vianet.UUCP (Bob Devine) writes:
> In article <267@bms-at.UUCP>, stuart@bms-at.UUCP (Stuart D. Gathman) writes:
> > The years 4000, 8000, . . . are not leap years!
> 
>   I, too, was certain that I had read years divisible by 4000 are
> not leap years.  However, after several people replied with "are
> you really sure?" letters, I checked.  My findings were that it is
> likely that someone did once make that suggestion but it has never
> been formally agreed to.  I never found my recollected source.

In the book "ASTRONOMY" by Franklyn M. Branley (Astronomer Emeritus,
The American Museum - Hayden Planetarium), Mark R. Chartrand III
(Chairman, The American Museum - Hayden Planetarium), and Helmut
K. Wimmer (Art Supervisor, The American Museum - Hayden Planetarium),
on page 412 while discussing the Gregorian Calendar it states:

	"At the present time the intercalation procedure is as follows:
	 all years divisible by 4 are leap years, except century years
	 which are leap years only when divisible by 400.  Exceptions
	 are the years 4000, 8000, 12 000, and so on, which are not
	 leap years."

I would have thought that the authors would have known if the "multiple
of 4000" rule had not been adopted, but who knows.  Where is this sort
of thing "officially" recorded?
-- 
Roy J. Mongiovi		Systems Analyst		Office of Computing Services
Georgia Institute of Technology		Atlanta GA  30332.	(404) 894-4660
 ...!{akgua, allegra, amd, hplabs, ihnp4, masscomp, ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!roy