Re: Holidays in fancy diary

[Ed Reingold]

> > No!!! The change mucks about with the BC/AD change which is irrelevant and 
> > wrong.  It needs to be AS IT WAS.
> 
> Perhaps you should add some comments somewhere explaining why the
> BC/AD change should be as it was, because it certainly looks like the
> previous code did not take into account that there was no year 0, so I
> am not surprised someone thought it was a bug and fixed it.

That's absurd--somebody mucking about with code they do not understand, where 
there was no reported error?

What should I do--add "DO NOT CHANGE THIS CODE UNLESS YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE 
DOING" at every function?

The point is, you don't change what you don't understand!!