Convert duration to years?

[Nestor via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On Sunday, 15 January 2017 at 16:57:35 UTC, biozic wrote:
> On Sunday, 15 January 2017 at 14:20:04 UTC, Nestor wrote:
>> 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.
>

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I was not refering here to 
age in the conventional sense, but to the actual aging process. 
In other words, in this particular case the amount of days 
elapsed would have been 366 instead of 365.