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    [W:0.020 / U:29.780 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site