"Phil Last" <phil.last@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:c56c83c0-a713-440c-9cf4-c0ecdf8c407b@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
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??+?×4 100 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] ×4 100 1000 °.| w}
>
> daysin <- {w[a]}°{31 w 31 30 31 30 31 31 30 31 30 31}°{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?{0=.=1 4 100 400?.|?}
Phil
Phil,
It's J for Windows V2.06 Personal Edition (still sealed)
jk
|
