Re: Revenge of the Y2K Bug?

[Stavros Robert Karatsoridis <skaratso@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu>]

Mike Westerfield <MikeW50@aol.com> wrote:

> ----------
> In article <36A4BDB0.3F33F020@mb.imag.net>, Doug Browning
> <wpg750@mb.imag.net> wrote:


>>Actually, the year 2000 IS a leap year. Beginning with that year, EVERY four years
>>is a leap year. The divisable by 400 rule no longer applys because the calendar is
>>now on track and only requires a additional day every 4 years to maintain
>>accuracy.

> Do you have a source for that? When I researched calendars a few years ago I
> never saw anything like this. Based on all of the information I found, 2000
> is a leap year, but 1900, 2100, 2200 and 2300 are not, as Beverly said. When
> did this change? Who changed it?

> Mike Westerfield

Perhaps he means that the point is rather moot, as far as any of us is
concerned.  I doubt that many of us will be using our Apple II computers
past the year 2100... Yes 2000 is a leap year, and 2100, 2200, and 2300
are not, but we won't be around to test our software with those years,
will we? :-)  

Stavros