Re: New date bug [Re: Correcting AGE_INFO]
Re: New date bug [Re: Correcting AGE_INFO]
- Subject: Re: New date bug [Re: Correcting AGE_INFO]
- From: Michelle Steiner <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2010 06:29:30 -0700
On Feb 5, 2010, at 6:04 AM, Mark J. Reed wrote: The difference is that centennial years not divisible by 400 are not leap years in the new system - so 1900 wasn't a leap year, and 2100 won't be, either.
I had to take all those exceptions into account when I wrote a calendar program (all it did was print them; it was not an appointment or event calendar) for the Apple II and for Microsoft BASIC for the Mac.
The code for that line in MS BASIC was DM(2) =DM(2) -(YEAR/4 =INT(YEAR/4)) +(YEAR/100= INT(YEAR/100)) -(YEAR/400= INT(YEAR/400)) "DM" stood for "Days in Month", and the "(2)" was obviously for the second month (February).
You can see the MS BASIC source code for the entire program at
-- Michelle
--
Forget world peace.
Visualize using
your turn signal!
|
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
AppleScript-Users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
Archives: http://lists.apple.com/archives/applescript-users
This email sent to email@hidden