On Feb 27, 12:07 pm, "jk" <*a...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(remove the asterisks)>
wrote:
> The worries did start in 1997, the first year after the last leapyear:
THE=
> MILLENNIUM crisis - for god's sake - they really got worried ...!!
> Does anybody know wether they have "already" a solution for
> The next date crisis, by R.L. Glass, ACM Communications, jan. 1997?
>
> jk
>
> "Stephen Taylor <edi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>"
<StephenTaylorF...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>=
wrote
> in
messagenews:be51d3fe-93a6-46aa-b889-5b7b3334e09b@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I'm fond too of the following in Dyalog. There are shorter ways to
> write daysin, but I'm seduced by lucidity.
>
> ? is ? a leap year?
> leap?{0 2??+?=C3=974 100 1000?.|?}
>
> ? m daysin y
> daysin?{?[?]}?{31 ? 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31}?{28+leap ?}
>
> and for those whose email clients mangle Unicode:
>
> leap <- {0 2 {member}{commute} +/[1] =C3=974 100 1000 =C2=B0.| w}
>
> daysin <- {w[a]}=C2=B0{31 w 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31}=C2=B0{28+leap
w=
}
>
> Stephen Taylor
> edi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
was a bit worried by JK's 4 100 400|/
I'm not saying it's wrong. I just wasn't sure what dialect it was in.
I though perhaps it was an n-wise residue reduction.
My favourite leap calc is
leap=E2=86=90{0=3D.=3D1 4 100 400=E2=88=98.|=E2=8D=B5}
Phil
|
