# Boolean operations on large bit vectors / arrays

**URL:** https://discourse.julialang.org/t/boolean-operations-on-large-bit-vectors-arrays/1137
**Category:** Internals & Design
**Created:** [December 24, 2016, 3:24pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/boolean-operations-on-large-bit-vectors-arrays/1137 "2016-12-24T15:24:59Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![ChrisRackauckas](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/chrisrackauckas/32/77_2.png) [@ChrisRackauckas](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/ChrisRackauckas)
#### Post date: [December 24, 2016, 3:52pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/boolean-operations-on-large-bit-vectors-arrays/1137/2 "2016-12-24T15:52:46Z")

</div>

The discussion here on specialized versions for `Vector` is highly related at a more abstract level:

> [@What is the future of \`sin(::Vector)\` when there is \`sin.(::Vector)\`?](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/what-is-the-future-of-sin-vector-when-there-is-sin-vector/677):
>
> Since - as I understand it - the new broadcast sugar is the new way of computing the element-wise value of a function I wonder what the plan is with the special vectorized versions, such as sin(::Vector) for example. Is the plan that they will continue to work as is or are there thoughts about repurposing the signature? I am asking because I contemplate how to go about this with LossFunctions.jl and I do try to keep things “julian”. Personally, at least for my use-case, I am considering making …

---

_[View the full topic](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/boolean-operations-on-large-bit-vectors-arrays/1137)._