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.
Benny

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/