Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Y2k compliance | From | Benny Amorsen <> | Date | 05 Dec 1998 12:23:12 +0100 |
| |
>>>>> "MJ" == Myreen Johan <Johan.Myreen@setec.fi> writes:
MJ> I don't understand the fuzz about year 2000 being a leap year.
[..]
MJ> Do do you really expect to find programs out there written by MJ> programmers informed enough to take into account that years MJ> divisible by 100 are not leap years, but *at* *the* *same* *time* MJ> don't know that years divisible by 400 are leap years after all?
MJ> Has anybody ever bumped into this problem in real life? I suspect MJ> this "problem" is just the product of the Y2K consultants' MJ> imagination.
I have seen it in real life.
Everyone knows that years divisible by 4 are leap years. A lot know that there are exceptions. Fewer know that there are two exceptions.
I thought the way you did when I first heard of the problem, but I have been forced to reconsider. There really are programs out there that think year 2000 is not a leap year.
Benny
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |