>I think you meant Birth + 1 then age -1 is not valid.
>
>I guess I have to agree, but it seems like it all comes down to not having a standard for age calculation.
>
>If {^1988/01/28}, {^1989/02/28}
>produces 1, 0, 0
>And {^1988/01/29}, {^1989/02/28}
>also produces 1, 0, 0
>then what should {^1988/01/28}, {^1989/03/01} produce?
>It gives 1, 0, 1 and that's not exactly right. Shouldn't it be 1, 0, 2?
>
>Does it make sense then to only calculate age by number of days and forget about trying to figure years and especially months?

Do we have someone in UT born on Feb. 29 in leap year? How do you solve age problem? How old were you on March 1st next year? And what about kids born on 28 of Feb. on the leap year? Are they one day older than their unlucky friends?

Looks like a time paradox <g> After one year the 1 day difference disappears <g>