Date: Wed, 6 Aug 1997 08:26:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Art S. Kagel" <kagel AT ns1 DOT bloomberg DOT com>
To: Lawrence Kirby <fred AT genesis DOT demon DOT co DOT uk>
Cc: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: having trouble with long numbers
In-Reply-To: <870396817snz@genesis.demon.co.uk>
Message-Id: <Pine.D-G.3.91.970806082451.6551A-100000@dg1>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, 1 Aug 1997, Lawrence Kirby wrote:

> In article <33DFD749 DOT 2AD2 AT ici DOT net>
>            carla AT ici DOT net "Alicia Carla Longstreet" writes:
> 
> >It is a bit closer to 365.246  (Which is why we do NOT have a leap year
> >on years that are divisable by 400.
> 
> Years divisible by 400 are leap years (which is why 2000 is a leap year).
> It is years divisible by 100 (other than those divisible by 400) that are
> not leap years.

Correct.  Check out comp.database.informix archives where a long
discussion of leap year calculation just finished last week.

Art S. Kagel, kagel AT bloomberg DOT com