> 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).
>
> cheers,
>
> Rik -- the flu hits, the flu hits, the flu hits -- MORE
> +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
> | Linux memory management tour guide. H.H.vanRiel@phys.uu.nl |
> | Scouting Vries cubscout leader. http://www.phys.uu.nl/~riel/ |
> +-------------------------------------------------------------------+
>
>
> -
> 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/
You would think that after 400 years these rules would be well known.
I have this wonderful image of all these people going to sleep on February 28,
2000 happy in the knowledge that the Y2K problems are finally under control
only to wake up the next morning and discover that their computers didn't
recognize February 29. :-)
-
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/