Re: Y2k compliance

[Alan Olsen]

On Dec 4,  4:13pm, Myreen Johan wrote:
> Subject: RE: Y2k compliance
>
> [ text/plain
>   Encoded with "quoted-printable" ]:
>
> I don't understand the fuzz about year 2000 being
> a leap year. The simplistic formula for finding
> out if a year is a leap year is to check if it is
> divisible by four. That formula is valid from the
> year 1901 until the year 2100. We're talking sbout
> lazy programmers not being able to see even 5-10
> years into the future. The "Year 2000 is a Leap
> Year" problem is kind of the Y2K problem inversed.
>
> Do do you really expect to find programs out there
> written by programmers informed enough to take
> into account that years divisible by 100 are not
> leap years, but *at* *the* *same* *time* don't
> know that years divisible by 400 are leap years
> after all?
>
> Has anybody ever bumped into this problem in real
> life? I suspect this "problem" is just the product
> of the Y2K consultants' imagination.

Actually it is not.

various versions of Excel have this problem.

-- 
Alan Olsen