[CLAM] Re. New SMSBatch

[Matt Barber]

->They are indeed available. These interpolation types specify how the
interpolation between two points in the break-point function is
performed.
I.e. if set to linear, a line is drawn from one point to the other and
intermediate values are obtained from this line; in step interpolation
the
value of the left point is used in any intermediate point; in "round"
the
average value from the two points is used; in "spline" a spline
approximation function is drawn and in the polynomial an nth order
polynomial is used. Note that both these last interpolations need a
number
of points, in the case of the polynomial related to its order, in order
to
give coherent results... We have never used them in this context and
they
are interesting for approximating spectral shapes, tell us what happens
if
you try.<-



Okay, I may be doing something wrong.  When I try putting any Polynomial
into the xml transformation score, SMSBatch crashes with a segmentation
fault when it tries to load the score (not when it's processing the
transformation) - which seems to me more of a syntax error (like it's
not expecting Polynomial2, or the circumstances aren't right for such a
Polynomial).  For Spline, I get this:


SMS Transformation Processing
##########################################################
################### ASSERTION FAILED #####################
##########################################################
At file ../../../../src/Standard/BPFTmplDef.hxx line 410
BPF::Spline table not updated


You mentioned I need a number of points for these two - can you
elaborate?  The only reason this interests me is that I have generally
found exponential and logarithmic curves more perceptually engaging and
even "natural" in most cases than line segments...

Step, Round, and Linear all work fine, of course.


One other question - when I save a transformation score from the gui,
each Config element has a <Type> element that repeats the
<ConcreteClassName> ... this isn't in the example transformation score -
is <Type></Type> superfluous?

Thanks,
Matt