lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1998]   [Dec]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: Y2k compliance
From
Date
>>>>> "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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:45    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site