On Jun 22, Bruce Perens wrote
> Speaking of predictability, isn't 2000 a leap year? The rule is different
> for the turn of the century.
2000/02/29 exists. (the rule is : every for years, but not every hundred
years, but every 400 years). AFAIK.
regards, andreas
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAIL
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (joost witteveen) writes:
>
> Now, we know the length of a year/day better, and
> only 1 in for of those turn-of-century years are leap years. Maybe that
> will change again. And about the seconds: we (currently, prossibly always)
> si
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Kai Henningsen)
> Not everyone switched in 1752.
This is Pope Gregory's calendar reform, isn't it? I think it goes back a
century or more before 1752.
> Actually, it probably was a bad idea to use "leap" for both. Leap days are
> fixed by calendar design. Leap seconds a
> > Run "cal 9 1752" and tell me that.
[..]
> A more serious problem is that the current implementation doesn't allow
> for non-Christian date systems, of which there are several in active use.
> I'd expect that to be a problem for people in both parts of Jerusalem, for
> example.
>
> Does a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Perens) wrote on 21.06.97 in <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Someone wrote:
> > This is completely unacceptable. OS time must be predictable.
>
> Run "cal 9 1752" and tell me that.
Consider it done. And now?
(Besides, isn't that a bug in cal? Not everyone switched in 1752. In fa
5 matches
Mail list logo
