There was also some discussion on the YEAR2000 mailing list about a
'divide by four' leap day calculation failing in 2100.

For those of us who have been enjoying this thread, you might also enjoy
http://www.boulder.nist.gov/timefreq/index.html, the home page for the
National Institute of Standards and Technology Boulder Laboratories,
Time and Frequency Division. Really, it has some interesting stuff, and
I for one liked the design of the site.

>----------
>From:  Gavin Scott[SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
>Sent:  Wednesday, November 12, 1997 3:13 PM
>To:    [log in to unmask]
>Subject:       Re: [HP3000-L] Y2K: Leap Year Or Not? -Reply
>
>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.
>
>G.
>