Messages in this thread | | | From | "Alan Olsen" <> | Date | Mon, 7 Dec 1998 10:22:41 -0800 | Subject | Re: Y2k compliance |
| |
On Dec 4, 4:13pm, Myreen Johan wrote: > Subject: RE: Y2k compliance > > [ text/plain > Encoded with "quoted-printable" ]: > > I don't understand the fuzz about year 2000 being > a leap year. The simplistic formula for finding > out if a year is a leap year is to check if it is > divisible by four. That formula is valid from the > year 1901 until the year 2100. We're talking sbout > lazy programmers not being able to see even 5-10 > years into the future. The "Year 2000 is a Leap > Year" problem is kind of the Y2K problem inversed. > > Do do you really expect to find programs out there > written by programmers informed enough to take > into account that years divisible by 100 are not > leap years, but *at* *the* *same* *time* don't > know that years divisible by 400 are leap years > after all? > > Has anybody ever bumped into this problem in real > life? I suspect this "problem" is just the product > of the Y2K consultants' imagination.
Actually it is not.
various versions of Excel have this problem.
-- Alan Olsen
- 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/
| |