No, 1894 doesn't divide by 4. 1894 was not a leap year. 1896 and 1892 were leap years. John
2008/7/22 Melody B <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I don't know if this is a bug or not. I have a date for something or > other that is "29 Feb 1894". > > To me, that sure looks like a valid date. 1894 should have been a leap > year. > > Unless of course it wasn't. But if not, then I don't know why. > > And if the date is correct, then Legacy 7 is having a problem with it - it > flags it as a bad date Every single time. > > > > -- > Take care, > Melody > If not now, when? > > Legacy User Group guidelines: > http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp > Archived messages: > http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ > Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp > To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp > Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages: http://www.mail-archive.com/legacyusergroup@legacyfamilytree.com/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
