# One-Liners

### [1/5] from: hugues::moisy::geosignal::fr at: 17-Apr-2003 19:15

Hi,
I was reading the One-Liners page in RebolTech web Site, and I've just a
very little remark on a script on Andrew.
In fact year 2000 is not a leapyear, because all years that multiply 400 are
not leapyear, in order to approach to the real number of days (365,2422) in
a year. With this system, it's approached to 365,2425
Just a remark
Regards
Hugues

### [2/5] from: Al:Bri:xtra at: 18-Apr-2003 8:35

Hugues wrote:

> I was reading the One-Liners page in RebolTech web Site, and I've just a

very little remark on a script on Andrew. In fact year 2000 is not a
leapyear, because all years that multiply 400 are not leapyear, in order to
approach to the real number of days (365,2422) in a year. With this system,
it's approached to 365,2425
My Windows XP clock calendar indicates that year 2000 has 29 days in
February. This means that 2000 IS a leap year.

>> leapyear? 1/1/2000

== true
Leapyear?: function [
"Returns true for a leap year."
Date [date!] "The date to check."
] [Year] [
Year: Date/year
any [
all [
0 = remainder Year 4
0 <> remainder Year 100
]
0 = remainder Year 400
]
]

>> 29/2/2000

== 29-Feb-2000

>> 30/2/2000

** Syntax Error: Invalid date -- 30/2/2000
** Near: (line 1) 30/2/2000

>> 28/2/2000

== 28-Feb-2000
Rebol also agrees that there is 29 days in February, 2000.
Any other opinions?
Andrew Martin
ICQ: 26227169 http://valley.150m.com/

### [3/5] from: bga:bug-br at: 17-Apr-2003 18:00

In Fri, 18 Apr 2003 08:35:12 +1200, Andrew Martin said:

> Hugues wrote:
> > I was reading the One-Liners page in RebolTech web Site, and I've

<<quoted lines omitted: 7>>

> My Windows XP clock calendar indicates that year 2000 has 29 days in
> February. This means that 2000 IS a leap year.
2000 was supposed to be a leap year because it is a multiple of four.
But, then, it was not supposed to be a leap year because it is a
multiple of 100. And, finally, it *WAS* a leap yar because it is a
multiple of 400.
In other words:
If you can divide the year by 4, it is a leap year unless you can also
divide it by 100, in which case it is not a leap year, unless, again.,
you can divide it by 400, in which case it is a leap year.
Pretty easy, no=3F ;)
-Bruno
--
Fortune Cookie Says:
Rules for Academic Deans:
(1) HIDE!!!!
(2) If they find you, LIE!!!!
-- Father Damian C. Fandal

### [4/5] from: greggirwin:mindspring at: 17-Apr-2003 15:52

Hi Hugues,
HM> I was reading the One-Liners page in RebolTech web Site, and I've just a
HM> very little remark on a script on Andrew.
HM> In fact year 2000 is not a leapyear, because all years that multiply 400 are
HM> not leapyear, in order to approach to the real number of days (365,2422) in
HM> a year. With this system, it's approached to 365,2425
To back up Andrew's response, here are the general/common rules I know of:
1) If the year is divisible by 4, it’s a leap year.
2) But—if the year is also divisible by 100, it’s not a leap year.
3) Double but—if the year is also divisible by 400, it is a leap year.
So 2000 is a leap year according to those. Now, there is more than one
calendaring system in the world, so...
-- Gregg

### [5/5] from: hugues:moisy:geosignal at: 18-Apr-2003 9:26

Sorry Andrew,
I did a mistake.

Notes

- Quoted lines have been omitted from some messages.

View the message alone to see the lines that have been omitted