Gavin Writes:

>Glenn writes:
>> The short answer is, it tests only for divisibility by 4,
>> not the "and not by 100, or it is divisible by 400" parts
>> of the rule. As such, since 2000 happens to be a leap year,
>> it's probably fine for most apps.
>
>Which is why there's only a "Year 2000 Crisis" and not a "Leap
>Year Crisis" as well.  Programs are generally either smart enough
>to do it right, or stupid enough to do it right.

Convenient that the electronic computer was invented in this century and
not the one before or after... gives us an extra hundred years to fix the
problem :-).

I've actually been wondering why there should be that much of a "Year
2000 crisis" at all. Haven't the really big institutions, like banks and
insurance companies, been dealing with cross-century transactions for 30
years or more? If you got your 30-year mortgage in 1970, it had a
maturity date in 2000. Same thing if you bought an annuity 30-40 years
ago. Small companies may not have dealt with this, but it's hard to
believe that, as some are predicting, the entire banking system will fall
over and start twitching on January 1, 2000.

-- Bruce


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Toback    Tel: (602) 996-8601| My candle burns at both ends;
OPT, Inc.            (800) 858-4507| It will not last the night;
11801 N. Tatum Blvd. Ste. 142      | But ah, my foes, and oh, my friends -
Phoenix AZ 85028                   | It gives a lovely light.
[log in to unmask]                   |     -- Edna St. Vincent Millay