Jim Phillips writes:

> I thought I had this year 2000 stuff down.  But now I get a letter
>  from one of our customers that really confused me.  My understanding
>  of the leap year algorithm is:
>
>  A year is a leap year if it is evenly divisible by 4, except for
>  those years that are evenly divisible by 400.
>
>  Is this correct?  Or am I (as usual) deluded?  Is the year 2000
>  a leap year or not?

The problem lies not in ourselves, dear friends, but in our algorithms. The
leap year algorithm, as explained by your correspondent, is in error. The
correct algorithm is:

A year is a leap year if it is evenly divisible by 4, except for those years
that are evenly divisible by 100, except for those years that are evenly
divisible by 400.

Thus the year 2000 is indeed a leap year.

Wirt Atmar