John Korb <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>Um, ah, what about leap years (1988 is a leap year, 1998 is not)?
>Ah heck, who cares about leap years anyway!
>
>On Fri, 13 Feb 1998, Costas Anastassiades wrote:

>> You don't need it. I've come up with a cunning plan.
>>
>> Tomorrow morning I'm going to subtract 10 from every year on our system,
set the date to February 14 1988 and start a new logging cycle :
>>
>> - Good for another 10 years
>> - No other changes required
>> - Users will get used to it in no time

It's not just the leap year, but the days of the week don't correspond
either.  However --------

A few weeks ago there was an article in Computerworld (I think) about
someone that had done precisely this.  He picked the appropriate year that
was a leap year and for which the weekdays matched (I don't have the
article or the calendars to work out which is the precise year) and wrote a
front-end to his system to translate the dates!  Supposedly saved him a
huge amount of money and effort.

John D. Alleyn-Day
Alleyn-Day International
408-286-6421   408-286-6474 (Fax)
[log in to unmask]       http://www.Alleyn-Day.com
"The man that never made a mistake never made anything"