>>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
>year 1901 until the year 2100. We're talking sbout
>lazy programmers not being able to see even 5-10
>years into the future. The "Year 2000 is a Leap
>Year" problem is kind of the Y2K problem inversed.
>
>Do do you really expect to find programs out there
>written by programmers informed enough to take
>into account that years divisible by 100 are not
>leap years, but *at* *the* *same* *time* don't
>know that years divisible by 400 are leap years
>after all?
It is possible.
>Has anybody ever bumped into this problem in real
>life? I suspect this "problem" is just the product
>of the Y2K consultants' imagination.
It's better to be cautious to possible problems than to assume
they won't cause problems. By your logic, "it is unlikely to
happen or cause problems" we might as well ignore Y2K too...
-- Mike A. Harris - Computer Consultant - Linux advocateLinux software galore: http://freshmeat.net
- 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/