From: "Ben Combee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > At 09:53 AM 10/18/2005, you wrote: > >As for why that date exactly I think it's related to leap year > >calculations. By avoiding 1900 they avoided some possibly > >complicated leap year issues (only to run into them again in > >Y2K, of course). > > Actually, the leap year problems did not occur with 2000, since it was a > multiple of 400 and had a leap day -- 1900 didn't have a leap day, so > handling it would have been a problem. > Great in theory, except for those programmers that did enough research to find the 'divide by 100' rule and not enough to find the 'divide by 400' rule. D'oh
Not that this has anything to do with Palm OS :-) Chris Tutty -- For information on using the PalmSource Developer Forums, or to unsubscribe, please see http://www.palmos.com/dev/support/forums/
