My look was a little too quick. I was looking for the constant 400, and saw
only 100 and 4, but by first dividing by 100 and then by 4, the years
divisible by 400 are turned into leap years, as they should be!
For another question. How are the decimal parts of the JD numbers to be
interpreted? I always assumed JD no's were integers.
Russell [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----- Original Message -----
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 12, 1999 3:43 PM
Subject: [REBOL] epoch? Re:(12)
> > >From a quick look, it appears the algorithms below don't allow for
years
> > that are multiples of 400 to be leap years, so might not work for 2000
(as
> > well as 1600, which is not so important, as the Gregorian calendar
suffered
> > a big one-time adjustment jump in 1852, I think. I don't think anyone
is
> > now using the Julian calendar, which preceded the current Gregorian
calendar
> > and had major errors, but are numbering days serially based on the
Julian
> > period, devised by Scaliger and named after his father.
>
> If I remember the source correctly, that comes from Astronomical
> Formulae for Calculators by Jean Meeus. It does take the Gregorian
> reform into account, and it should be solid regarding the leap years.
>
> Andy
>
>
