# Handling of exponent overflow in GNU APL and Dyalog APL (on Mac)

2 minutes read | 337 words by Ruben BerenguelA few weeks ago I started trying a pre-beta release of Dyalog APL (now available as “full beta”) for Mac. Fellow Mac users, looks like we are in for a treat after so much time of only having GNU APL and the pretty expensive APLX. Now Mac APL lovers, users and aficionados will have a competitive, commercial option. At last!

I started with the usual 1+1, ⍳ 10 , ⍴ ⍳ 10 to check it worked as expected. Then I moved on to a simple “hello world,” my Mandelbrot one-liner, which is probably the most complex piece of APL I’ve written. But it didn’t work at the first run (I had actually found it out back when I was writing it, since it didn’t work on TryAPL.) So I set to find out what the issue may be and learn a little more about APL while at it.

According to ISO/IEC 13751 (Programming Language APL, Extended) there is no clear guideline about what to do with *exponent-overflow* (or exponent underflow for that matter.) This is relatively usual in ISO specs for programming languages, and is a common pitfall when switching implementations.

Case in point, GNU APL returns **infinity** on overflow (for instance, you can try 3*1000 to see the difference) whereas Dyalog APL returns **Domain error**. Of course, both are valid and depending on your code and computation one can be much handier than the other.

My code initially was (copy-pasting it should work, but it is showing more spaces than needed):

⍉' *'[⍎'1+0<|z',(∊150⍴⊂'←c+m×m'),‘←c←(¯2.1J¯1.3+(((2.6÷b-1)×(¯1+⍳b))∘.+(0J1×(2.6÷b-1)×(¯1+⍳b←51))))']

The right-most area assumes GNU style, i.e. **infinity**. Which in a sense behaves like **NaN** in C: since it is not really a number, the comparison works and I get a nice image after indexing and rotating.

To make it work on Dyalog, the simplest way is adding an intermediate matrix, fixing points that diverge (copy-pasting it should work, but it is showing more spaces than needed)

⍉’ *'[⍎'1+2<|z',(∊130⍴⊂'←(d×4>|d)+4×4<|d←c+m×m'),‘←c←(¯2.1J¯1.3+(((2.6÷b-1)×(¯1+⍳b))∘.+(0J1×(2.6÷b-1)×(¯1+⍳b←51))))']

And this did the trick, and I leaned some more about how APLs work.