[lkml]   [1998]   [Dec]   [5]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: Y2k compliance
    >>>>> "MJ" == Myreen Johan <> 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.


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:45    [W:0.024 / U:10.912 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site