> > > "or equivalent"
> >
> > "Equivalent" needs a context. A component only can be considered
> > equivalent
> > in the context of a specific product with specific specs and a specific
> > production process. It may not be equivalent in a different situation.
> 
> 
> Gads, I can see this one coming...  "Well, it's got 14 little legs..", or
> "It's almost the same color"..
 
<trim> 

> There are a whole lot of definitions of "equivalent".
> 

I absolutly agree. I've been burned by 'equivilant' before myself. But the whole context of this discussion is the idea of specifing a generic component. If I specify on a BOM to use a Texas Instruments uA7805C or equivilant, that is enough information for a _rational_ person to make an _informed_ judgement. Of course defining 'rational' and 'informed' could start it's own flame war :-)

But I'm forced to wonder, if other manufacturer's parts are not acceptable to the design, then why are we looking for a way to indicate that a "generic" part is acceptable? 

-Denny





-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist