> In fact, the year 2000 isn't a leap year. A little-known rule of
> leapyears (iirc) is that any year divisible by 100 (i think) can't be a
> leapyear.
And an even less-well-known rule, obviously, is that years divisible by 400
*are* leap years. See http://www.amherst.edu/~atstarr/leapday.html, among
other calendrically-oriented sites.
Mr. Myréen asked whether 2000 being a leap year is a problem, since people
who know the /100 rule probably know the /400 rule as well. I neither wish
to single out Mr. Shore nor make an example out of him, but it appears that
Mr. Myréen's optimism is ill-founded.
(Another rarely-known fact is that the leap day is not the 29th of
February. It's actually the 24th. Inter Gravissimus (-mas?) can make for
interesting reading, when you're bored.)
-- Jeffrey Sean Connell | Networking/Telecommunications Engineer, GXC ankh@canuck.gen.nz | PGP key at http://www.canuck.gen.nz/~ankh/pgpkey.html ---------------------+-------------------------------------------------------
- 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/