>>So how does it cope with 2000 being a leep year?
>
>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
[snip]
because the formula you consider valid isn't the complete formula.
from an altavista search for "leap year":
The Gregorian calendar schedules leap years every fourth year to make up
for the fact that the Earth takes a little longer than 365 days to revolve
around the sun. The problem is that over a few centuries, adding this
extra day overcompensates. The builtin Gregorian solution was that years
evenly divisible by 100 do not have a leap year  except for years
divisible by 400, like 2000. In other words, 1600 was a leap year; 1700,
1800 and 1900 were not; 2000 will be.
>
>Johan Myréen
>jem@iki.fi
now, if we were to 'spin down the earth' we wouldn't have to worry about
all this leap year mumbojumbo.
Chipper

Please encrypt anything important.
PGP Key: http://pgp.ai.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x6CFA486D

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linuxkernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/