Re: Feb 29, 2000

[Jeff Crosby <jlcrosby@xxxxxxx>]

Joe Teff wrote:
 
> I thought the leap year rule stated that any year evenly divisible
> by 4 was a leap year unless it was also evenly divisible by 400
> and then it wasn't. That would make 1700, 1800 and 1900 leap
> years, but 2000 wouldn't be. Yet everywhere I look, it shows a
> Feb 29th in 2000 (calendars, PIM software, OS/400 date data
> types, etc). I seem remember a thread on this list a while back
> and it was stated that 2000 wasn't a leap year. Can anyone set
> me straight here.

If the year is evenly divisible by 4, it IS a leap year;
UNLESS it's evenly divisible by 100, then it is NOT a leap year;
UNLESS it's evenly divisible by 400, then it IS a leap year.

Therefore 1700, 1800, and 1900 are NOT leap years; while 1600 and 2000
ARE leap years.  

-- 
-Jeff
+---
| This is the Midrange System Mailing List!
| To submit a new message, send your mail to MIDRANGE-L@midrange.com.
| To subscribe to this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-SUB@midrange.com.
| To unsubscribe from this list send email to MIDRANGE-L-UNSUB@midrange.com.
| Questions should be directed to the list owner/operator: david@midrange.com
+---