Actually, I believe that the Julian calendar had a leap year as being every 4
years, while the switch to the Gregorian calendar introduced the more complex
rule of century years not being leap years, unless divisible by 400. This makes
2000 a leap year. I never heard of a rule stating that millenium years were not
leap years.

In any event, I believe that for Y2K purposes 2000 is being treated as a leap
year. I know that IBM is treating it as such.

Regards,

Andy

Andy Raibeck
IBM Storage Systems Division
ADSM Client Development
e-mail: storman AT us.ibm DOT com



ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU on 06/17/98 07:56:06 AM
Please respond to ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
To: ADSM-L AT VM.MARIST DOT EDU
cc:
Subject: Re: Y2K...!


>>ANR2631E QUERY EVENT: Invalid begin date - 02/29/2000.
>
>It would be interesting to know how it reacts to a query of another
>leap year in that millenium, as in "q event * * begindate=02/29/2004".
>That is, is ADSM just confused about the centenary, or other leap
>years beyond 2000 as well.        Richard Sims, BU

As the first leap year of the millenium, that should work.

Fred Johanson
System Administrator
SEA
NSIT
University of Chicago
773-702-8464