>>One tiny problem with this. Try to enter the date 02/29/00, a valid date
>>for year 2000. The problem here is that Feb 29, 1900 is not a valid date
>>(not a leap year).
>>
>
>Well, 2000 should be a leap year, since it's dividable (divisable?) with
>400. Can anyone clear this out?
That's the way I've heard it, too...and 1700, 1800, 1900, 2100, etc, are NOT leap years, to make time come out more accurately...
The Anonymous Bureaucrat,
and frankly, quite content not to be
a member of either major US political party.