That's the thinking that led to the Y2K problem. But the issue with after 2037 and a lot of systems will bite first, unless it's already been dealt with.
Fred On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Lew <[email protected]> wrote: > Of course since we just had the once in 400 correction, none of us or any > of our clients will be around to complain that mod(Year,4)=0 isn't precise > enough. > Lew > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul McNett <[email protected]> > Sender: [email protected] > Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 14:54:11 > To: <[email protected]> > Reply-To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Testing for leap year? > > On 4/12/11 2:49 PM, Lou Syracuse wrote: > > Something like this? > > > > dDate = ctod('2/28/'+<year as a string>) + 1 > > if month(dDate) = 2 > > ' leap year > > Else > > ' not leap year > > Endif > > It isn't as simple as that. Here's the pseudocode algorithm from wikipedia: > > if year modulo 400 is 0 > then is_leap_year > else if year modulo 100 is 0 > then not_leap_year > else if year modulo 4 is 0 > then is_leap_year > else > not_leap_year > > But I like Mike's TRY/CATCH approach. > > Paul > [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
