Date: Tue, 28 Oct 1997 09:30:34 +0000 From: nik@iii.co.uk To: Stephen Roome <steve@visint.co.uk> Cc: "Jonathan M. Bresler" <jmb@FreeBSD.ORG>, freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 2000 Compliance / dates / time libs Message-ID: <19971028093034.62730@iii.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.3.95.1000229045221.14383D-100000@dylan.visint.co.uk>; from Stephen Roome on Tue, Feb 29, 2000 at 04:57:07AM %2B0000 References: <199710271629.IAA00243@hub.freebsd.org> <Pine.BSF.3.95.1000229045221.14383D-100000@dylan.visint.co.uk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, Feb 29, 2000 at 04:57:07AM +0000, Stephen Roome wrote:
> But anyway, that was my assumption as well, but I've heard otherwise and
> ensuring that FreeBSD gets the leap/non-leap year bit of 2000 correct is
> probably quite important.
The best reference I've seen for this is
http://www.southern.edu/~bnbennet/text/lycomplaint.html
which purports to be a DEC internal problem report after one of their
users complained that VMS reported 2000 as being a leap year. I have no
idea as to it's veracity, but the information itself is accurate.
N
--
--+==[ Nik Clayton is Just Another Perl Hacker at Interactive Investor ]==+--
The only use I have for IE4 is to keep the mug from staining the desk
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?19971028093034.62730>