On Sunday, 15 January 2017 at 14:20:04 UTC, Nestor wrote:
On Sunday, 15 January 2017 at 14:04:39 UTC, Nestor wrote:
...
For example, take a baby born in february 29 of year 2000
(leap year). In february 28 of 2001 that baby was one day
short to one year.
Family can make a concession and celebrate birthdays in
february 28 of non-leap years, but march 1 is the actual day
when the year of life completes. Which one to choose?
On second thought, if a baby was born in march 1 of 1999
(non-leap year), in march 1 of 2000 (leap year) the age would
have been one year plus one day (because of february 29).
No. A baby born on March 1st 1999 is just "one year old" on March
1st 2000, as it also is on March 2nd or any day after during the
same year.
So perhaps the best thing is to always perform a "relaxed"
calculation.
I guess the problem of people born on February 29th is really
application-dependent, and it also depends on the use of the
calculated age. A social web app: users probably would like to
see their age change on the 28th of non-leap years. A
regulation-aware software: just follow what the law says. Etc.
