Sorry - there was a Millennium Bug (!) in my piece, as Scott Thomas
courteously pointed out off line (reproduced below).

In suggesting a no-specialised test based on setting the computer
clock forward to 28 February 2000 I meant to say "suspension of the leap
year RULE" (not "day").

As Scott correctly points out the normal leap year rule is that a
centenary year, though divisible by four, is not a leap year.

However, year 2000 WILL be a leap year - so if your system BIOS and clock
etc. are correctly set, 23.59h. on 28 February 2000 will move on to
00.00h. 29 February.  If on the other hand it moves on to 1 March then you
probably have a hardware problem.

Many thanks to Scott for this.

Patrick Boylan

===============================

On Mon, 10 Aug 1998, Scott Thomas wrote:

> Subject: RE: YEAR 2000 PROBLEMS - RESPONSE (+++ LONG MESSAGE +++)
>
> Patrick,
> A well written synopsis of the problem.
> One question. You wrote:
>
> "...  (If you want to be doubly sure, after this move the day forward to 11.45pm on 28 February 2000 and check that it copes with the year 2000 suspension of the leap year day as well.) ..."
>
> My understanding, from reading about this on the Greenwich Observatory web site, (now apparently off line but hopefully not forever) is that the year 2000 is a leap year based on the following rule.
>
> "According to the Gregorian calendar, which is the civil calendar in use today, years evenly divisible by 4 are leap years, with the exception of centurial years that are not evenly divisible by 400. Therefore, the years 1700, 1800, 1900 and 2100 are not leap years, but 1600, 2000, and 2400 are leap years."
>
> The above is a quote the U.S. Naval Observatory since I could not get to Greenwich Observatory.
> http://riemann.usno.navy.mil/AA/faq/docs/faq1.html
>
> Did I misunderstand your write-up or am I missing some other point?
>
> Thanks for the clarification.
> Scott Thomas
> [log in to unmask]
>
>