Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Sat, 8 Oct 2011 19:12:49 -0400 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Hi Kevin,
Well, I'm afraid you got me on a technicality, however (to wit and to woe
<laugh>) I really wasn't wrong because I stated that you should count up the
number of leap years. Now I did not mention that the century years that are
divisible by 400 do not have leap years, but that is an omission--not an
error. I knew that <laugh>.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Kevin Minor" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, October 08, 2011 6:50 PM
Subject: Re: This will prove I have too much time on my hands, but an
interesting thing happens tomorrow.
Hi.
Your figuring the day a date is on almost works. There's the thing about
leap years not being in years that divide by 100, but there's a leap year in
years divided by 400. So 1600 had a leap year, 1700, 1800 and 1900 did not,
2000 did.
There were programmers who were concerned about this fact in 2000.
Just something more to think about.
Kevin
|
|
|