Clive Pottinger writes:

> NOTE: The number returned representing the Lotus 1-2-3 date is
> inaccurate for dates before Mar 1, 1900.  This is because Lotus 1-2-3
> has a bug - it incorrectly treats 1900 as a leap year.

Incidentally, this touches on why I think we got "lucky" with y2k situation.

From Clive's statement, it looks like 1-2-3 takes as its leap year rule
"any year that is evenly divisible by 4."  Of course, that's only one
piece of a 3-piece rule.  It is our good fortune that this piece also
points to 2000 as being a leap year.

If technology had advanced "a bit faster" and we were preparing for 1900,
there would be more software failure.

--Glenn

.......................................................................

Item Subject: cc:Mail Text