>>>BOb
>>That's because "normal" century years are not leap years -- otherwise we'd get ahead of ourselves. Presumably a millenium year is a leap year (I wasn't around for the last one so I don't remember if it was or not)
>>
>>I think we should just pick up the planet and move it slightly so that its orbit corresponds to an exact (& non-prime) number of days. Then we could have a calendar that made sense.
>>
>>Jen
>
>Jen,
>
>Just to add to your trivia collection, a year is a leap year if ...
>
>1. It is evenly divisible by 400
>
>2. It is not evenly divisible by 100 and it is evenly divisible by 4
>
>So, for example;
>
>

>* IsLeap
>LPARAMETERS pnYear
>LOCAL llLeap
>llLeap = (pnYear%400 = 0)
>IF NOT llLeap
>   llLeap = (pnYear%100<>0) AND (pnYear%4=0)
>ENDIF
>RETURN llLeap
>

So my theory about century years does not hold true. 1600 was a leap year, but 1700, 1800, and 1900 were not. 2000 will be. Sheeesh! Come on guys, lets just move the (&@!&*%(^&%)#ing planet -- it can't be any harder that working this stuff out.

Jen
who obviously needs more coffee!