Re: Y2k compliance

Rik van Riel (
Sat, 5 Dec 1998 11:23:59 +0100 (CET)

On Fri, 4 Dec 1998, S. Shore wrote:

> 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.

Oww, I don't believe this!

#define leapyear(year) (!(year % 4) && ((year % 100) || \
!(year % 400)))

I hope this matter is settled now, once and for all
(well, until we need to define a new calender due to
the earth's rotational speed slowing down).


Rik -- the flu hits, the flu hits, the flu hits -- MORE
| Linux memory management tour guide. |
| Scouting Vries cubscout leader. |

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