When century years only have leapyear when divisible by 400?
Excel knows this for the century years after 2000 such as 2100, 2200, 2300 don't have leapyear
2/28/2100 in cell A1 (no = sign)
Cell A2 formula
=A1+1
Gives value 3/1/2100
But for 2/28/1900 in cell A1
A2 value shows wrongly as 2/29/1900
But I have a feeling I know why this error was intentional
If some programmers decided to use nominal integers for calendar days and want a balanced number of days to show, maybe there was reason to rig 1900? Anyone else know how this error got accepted?
Or
Is it that the cost of fixing the error now will cause too many work-arounds to potential financial reports that use the wrong numeric system that economically it's not worth tweaking the excel application because it will cause issues for too many data files and people from 1900 still use paper.
Excel knows this for the century years after 2000 such as 2100, 2200, 2300 don't have leapyear
2/28/2100 in cell A1 (no = sign)
Cell A2 formula
=A1+1
Gives value 3/1/2100
But for 2/28/1900 in cell A1
A2 value shows wrongly as 2/29/1900
But I have a feeling I know why this error was intentional
If some programmers decided to use nominal integers for calendar days and want a balanced number of days to show, maybe there was reason to rig 1900? Anyone else know how this error got accepted?
Or
Is it that the cost of fixing the error now will cause too many work-arounds to potential financial reports that use the wrong numeric system that economically it's not worth tweaking the excel application because it will cause issues for too many data files and people from 1900 still use paper.
Why is MS Excel convinced there's a 2/29/1900 calendar date?
0 commentaires:
Enregistrer un commentaire