Re: THE CLOCK by Mountain Computer Inc.

[Nick <spam@ix.netcom.com>]

The inherent problem with this lies with how software is written to give you days
of the week.  Your days of the week will be off by one if the software thinks
that 2000 is not a leap year.

I don't know if this was ever posted in this thread, but for algorithm's sake, it
is a leap year if:

The year is divisible by 4, the year is not divisble by 100, unless it is also
divisible by 400.

if(!(year % 400) || (!(year % 4) && (year %100))) thisyear=leapyear;

I think thats right...



Jonathan Schattke wrote:

> Kenneth Schunk wrote:
>
> > Actually, there is a bit more to Y2K compliance than just the 00 year. One
> > issue, which is hardware, is the leap year. 1900 was NOT a leap year, and
> > 2000 IS. Some clocks assume that the 00 year is a leap year, which is good,
> > and some assume that 00 is not (ala 1900), which is a bad thing as far as
> > Y2K goes. (Of course, the 00 leap year means you won't be Y2100 compliant,
> > but that's a subject for future lawsuits! )
>
> Ken, If one extra day in february is the worst of your problems, you're
> doing fine.
>
> --
> \  /\  /                                       If you aren't happy,
>  VVizVVom - Wandering Kernel of Happiness           it's not my fault.
>  ~~~> homepage at http://www.ripco.com/~wizwom <~~~