Reordering vector of vectors based on input vector - c++

In a small application, I've been using a std::vector of std::vector<std::string> to temporarily store
some data (pulled from a non-SQL database) before processing it and uploading it to a SQL database. Unfortunately,
the API from which I am extracting the data does not necessarily return fields in the order specified by a query;
e.g. if my query requests fields x, y, z, the data may be returned as y, x, z, or z, y, x, etc... Obviously
this is problematic because if the target SQL table's columns are x, y, z, then the data being inserted needs
to reflect this.
To account for this random field ordering, I wrote a small function that takes (1) the input data, as returned by the API;
and (2) a std::vector<std::string> representing the desired column ordering, as defined in the SQL table - and
reorders the elements of each subvector accordingly. Since the first row of the input data is a vector of field
names, I'm able to compare it to the correctly ordered vector and determine how each subvector should be
reordered:
void fix_order(std::vector<std::vector<std::string>>& data, const std::vector<std::string>& correct) {
std::size_t width = data[0].size();
std::vector<int> order_idx(width);
for (std::size_t i = 0; i < width; i++) {
std::string tmp(data[0].at(i));
auto pos = std::find(correct.begin(), correct.end(), tmp);
order_idx[i] = std::distance(correct.begin(), pos);
}
for (std::size_t i = 0; i < data.size(); i++) {
if (!data[i].empty()) {
std::vector<std::string> q(width);
for (unsigned int j = 0; j < width; j++) {
int new_pos = order_idx[j];
q[new_pos] = data[i].at(j);
}
std::swap(data[i], q);
}
}
}
In action, if the input data fields were ordered as second, fourth, first, third, and I passed a vector specifying the correct order as first, second, third, fourth, the transformation looks like this:
Before:
second fourth first third
2nd 4th 1st 3rd
2nd 4th 1st 3rd
After:
first second third fourth
1st 2nd 3rd 4th
1st 2nd 3rd 4th
Although the function produces the desired result, my mixture of loops and STL algorithms feels sloppy and just not very readable in general. In other situations I've typically been able to use std::sort with a custom comparator function for nonstandard sorting, but I was not able to figure out how to adapt this approach here, where the "sorting" is determined by a predefined input, rather than some type of comparison-based logic. Is there a more idiomatic way to accomplish this - i.e. making better use of STL algorithms (not necessarily std::sort) or other C++ idioms?
Here's an online demo to reproduce the situation.

If you transpose the data, it's as easy as sorting the vectors by the index of the first element in them. This will be slower than your solution but may be more readable:
void fix_order(std::vector<std::vector<std::string>>& data, const std::vector<std::string>& correct) {
// setup index map, e.g. "first" --> 0
std::unordered_map<std::string, size_t> idx;
for (size_t i = 0; i < correct.size(); ++i) {
idx.insert(std::make_pair(correct[i], i));
}
// transpose for efficient sorting
auto tp = transpose(std::move(data));
// sort based on index map
std::sort(tp.begin(), tp.end(), [&](const std::vector<std::string>& lhs, const std::vector<std::string>& rhs){
return idx[lhs[0]] < idx[rhs[0]];
});
// transpose back to get the form you wanted
data = transpose(std::move(tp));
}
Where transpose is just:
std::vector<std::vector<std::string>> transpose(std::vector<std::vector<std::string>>&& data)
{
std::vector<std::vector<std::string>> result(data[0].size(),
std::vector<std::string>(data.size()));
for (size_t i = 0; i < data[0].size(); ++i) {
for (size_t j = 0; j < data.size(); ++j) {
result[i][j] = std::move(data[j][i]);
}
}
return result;
}

Related

Use only one column of array as function argument

Suppose I have a very large array of data:
double matrix[100000][100] = {0.0};
During runtime this data is updated. Now I want to give the reference to this data to a function FUNC. However, I want to only give one column to the function FUNC, like:
FUNC(matrix["all elements"]["only column with index 5"]);
and not the entire array. Furthermore, I dont want to perform a copy operation before (because this is slow), I just want to give the pointer or reference to the specific rows/columns inside the large array data. The function should only see an array like:
void FUNC(double* array)
{
for (int i = 0; i < 100000; i++)
doSomething(array[i]);
}
How do I do give this partial data from array "matrix" to the function FUNC?
The column values of your matrix are not sequential in memory, so you can't pass a single column to FUNC() without making a copy of the data into a sequential array. However, if you are able to add the column index as an additional parameter to FUNC() then you can do something like this instead:
const int MAX_ROWS = ...;
const int MAX_COLS = ...;
using Matrix = double[MAX_ROWS][MAX_COLS];
void doSomething(double value)
{
...
}
void FUNC(const Matrix& matrix, int column)
{
for (int row = 0; row < MAX_ROWS; ++row) {
doSomething(matrix[row][column]);
}
}
Matrix matrix = {};
...
FUNC(matrix, 5);
Online Demo

FAISS with C++ indexing 512D vectors

I have a collection of 512D std::vector to store face embeddings. I create my index and perform training on a subset of the data.
int d = 512;
size_t nb = this->templates.size() // 95000
size_t nt = 50000; // training data size
std::vector<float> training_set(nt * d);
faiss::IndexFlatIP coarse_quantizer(d);
int ncentroids = int(4 * sqrt(nb)));
faiss::IndexIVFPQ index(&coarse_quantizer,d,ncentroids,4,8);
std::vector<float> training_set(nt*d);
The this->templates has an index value in [0] and the 512D vectors in [1]. My question is about the training and indexing. I have this currently:
int v=0;
for (auto const& element : this->templates)
{
std::vector<double> enrollment_template = element.second;
for (int i=0;i<d;i++){
training_set[(v*d)+i] = (float)enrollment_template.at(i);
v++;
}
index.train(nt,training_set.data());
FAISS Index.Train function
virtual void train(idx_t n, const float *x)
Perform training on a representative set of vectors
Parameters:
n – nb of training vectors
x – training vecors, size n * d
Is that the proper way of adding the 512D vector data into Faiss for training? It seems to me that if I have 2 face embeddings that are 512D in size, the training_set would be like this:
training_set[0-511] - Face #1's 512D vectors
training_set[512-1024] - Face #2's 512D vectors
and since Faiss knows we are working with 512D vectors, it will intelligently parse them out of the array.
Here's a more efficient way to write it:
int v = 0;
for (auto const& element : this->templates)
{
auto& enrollment_template = element.second; // not copy
if (v + d > training_set.size()) {
break; // prevent overflow, "nt" is smaller than templates.size()
}
for (int i = 0; i < d; i++) {
training_set[v] = enrollment_template[i]; // not at()
v++;
}
}
We avoid a copy with auto& enrollment_template, avoid extra branching with enrollment_template[i] (you know you won't be out of bounds), and simplify the address computation with training_set[v] by making v a count of elements rather than rows.
Further efficiency could be gained if templates can be changed to store floats rather than doubles--then you'd just be bitwise-copying 512 floats rather than converting doubles to floats.
Also, be sure to declare d as constexpr to give the compiler the best chance of optimizing the loop.

Having a hard time figuring out logic behind array manipulation

I am given a filled array of size WxH and need to create a new array by scaling both the width and the height by a power of 2. For example, 2x3 becomes 8x12 when scaled by 4, 2^2. My goal is to make sure all the old values in the array are placed in the new array such that 1 value in the old array fills up multiple new corresponding parts in the scaled array. For example:
old_array = [[1,2],
[3,4]]
becomes
new_array = [[1,1,2,2],
[1,1,2,2],
[3,3,4,4],
[3,3,4,4]]
when scaled by a factor of 2. Could someone explain to me the logic on how I would go about programming this?
It's actually very simple. I use a vector of vectors for simplicity noting that 2D matrixes are not efficient. However, any 2D matrix class using [] indexing syntax can, and should be for efficiency, substituted.
#include <vector>
using std::vector;
int main()
{
vector<vector<int>> vin{ {1,2},{3,4},{5,6} };
size_t scaleW = 2;
size_t scaleH = 3;
vector<vector<int>> vout(scaleH * vin.size(), vector<int>(scaleW * vin[0].size()));
for (size_t i = 0; i < vout.size(); i++)
for (size_t ii = 0; ii < vout[0].size(); ii++)
vout[i][ii] = vin[i / scaleH][ii / scaleW];
auto x = vout[8][3]; // last element s/b 6
}
Here is my take. It is very similar to #Tudor's but I figure between our two, you can pick what you like or understand best.
First, let's define a suitable 2D array type because C++'s standard library is very lacking in this regard. I've limited myself to a rather simple struct, in case you don't feel comfortable with object oriented programming.
#include <vector>
// using std::vector
struct Array2d
{
unsigned rows, cols;
std::vector<int> data;
};
This print function should give you an idea how the indexing works:
#include <cstdio>
// using std::putchar, std::printf, std::fputs
void print(const Array2d& arr)
{
std::putchar('[');
for(std::size_t row = 0; row < arr.rows; ++row) {
std::putchar('[');
for(std::size_t col = 0; col < arr.cols; ++col)
std::printf("%d, ", arr.data[row * arr.cols + col]);
std::fputs("]\n ", stdout);
}
std::fputs("]\n", stdout);
}
Now to the heart, the array scaling. The amount of nesting is … bothersome.
Array2d scale(const Array2d& in, unsigned rowfactor, unsigned colfactor)
{
Array2d out;
out.rows = in.rows * rowfactor;
out.cols = in.cols * colfactor;
out.data.resize(std::size_t(out.rows) * out.cols);
for(std::size_t inrow = 0; inrow < in.rows; ++inrow) {
for(unsigned rowoff = 0; rowoff < rowfactor; ++rowoff) {
std::size_t outrow = inrow * rowfactor + rowoff;
for(std::size_t incol = 0; incol < in.cols; ++incol) {
std::size_t in_idx = inrow * in.cols + incol;
int inval = in.data[in_idx];
for(unsigned coloff = 0; coloff < colfactor; ++coloff) {
std::size_t outcol = incol * colfactor + coloff;
std::size_t out_idx = outrow * out.cols + outcol;
out.data[out_idx] = inval;
}
}
}
}
return out;
}
Let's pull it all together for a little demonstration:
int main()
{
Array2d in;
in.rows = 2;
in.cols = 3;
in.data.resize(in.rows * in.cols);
for(std::size_t i = 0; i < in.rows * in.cols; ++i)
in.data[i] = static_cast<int>(i);
print(in);
print(scale(in, 3, 2));
}
This prints
[[0, 1, 2, ]
[3, 4, 5, ]
]
[[0, 0, 1, 1, 2, 2, ]
[0, 0, 1, 1, 2, 2, ]
[0, 0, 1, 1, 2, 2, ]
[3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, ]
[3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, ]
[3, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, ]
]
To be honest, i'm incredibly bad at algorithms but i gave it a shot.
I am not sure if this can be done using only one matrix, or if it can be done in less time complexity.
Edit: You can estimate the number of operations this will make with W*H*S*S where Sis the scale factor, W is width and H is height of input matrix.
I used 2 matrixes m and r, where m is your input and r is your result/output. All that needs to be done is to copy each element from m at positions [i][j] and turn it into a square of elements with the same value of size scale_factor inside r.
Simply put:
int main()
{
Matrix<int> m(2, 2);
// initial values in your example
m[0][0] = 1;
m[0][1] = 2;
m[1][0] = 3;
m[1][1] = 4;
m.Print();
// pick some scale factor and create the new matrix
unsigned long scale = 2;
Matrix<int> r(m.rows*scale, m.columns*scale);
// i know this is bad but it is the most
// straightforward way of doing this
// it is also the only way i can think of :(
for(unsigned long i1 = 0; i1 < m.rows; i1++)
for(unsigned long j1 = 0; j1 < m.columns; j1++)
for(unsigned long i2 = i1*scale; i2 < (i1+1)*scale; i2++)
for(unsigned long j2 = j1*scale; j2 < (j1+1)*scale; j2++)
r[i2][j2] = m[i1][j1];
// the output in your example
std::cout << "\n\n";
r.Print();
return 0;
}
I do not think it is relevant for the question, but i used a class Matrix to store all the elements of the extended matrix. I know it is a distraction but this is still C++ and we have to manage memory. And what you are trying to achieve with this algorithm needs a lot of memory if the scale_factor is big so i wrapped it up using this:
template <typename type_t>
class Matrix
{
private:
type_t** Data;
public:
// should be private and have Getters but
// that would make the code larger...
unsigned long rows;
unsigned long columns;
// 2d Arrays get big pretty fast with what you are
// trying to do.
Matrix(unsigned long rows, unsigned long columns)
{
this->rows = rows;
this->columns = columns;
Data = new type_t*[rows];
for(unsigned long i = 0; i < rows; i++)
Data[i] = new type_t[columns];
}
// It is true, a copy constructor is needed
// as HolyBlackCat pointed out
Matrix(const Matrix& m)
{
rows = m.rows;
columns = m.columns;
Data = new type_t*[rows];
for(unsigned long i = 0; i < rows; i++)
{
Data[i] = new type_t[columns];
for(unsigned long j = 0; j < columns; j++)
Data[i][j] = m[i][j];
}
}
~Matrix()
{
for(unsigned long i = 0; i < rows; i++)
delete [] Data[i];
delete [] Data;
}
void Print()
{
for(unsigned long i = 0; i < rows; i++)
{
for(unsigned long j = 0; j < columns; j++)
std::cout << Data[i][j] << " ";
std::cout << "\n";
}
}
type_t* operator [] (unsigned long row)
{
return Data[row];
}
};
First of all, having a suitable 2D matrix class is presumed but not the question. But I don't know the API of yours, so I'll illustrate with something typical:
struct coord {
size_t x; // x position or column count
size_t y; // y position or row count
};
template <typename T>
class Matrix2D {
⋮ // implementation details
public:
⋮ // all needed special members (ctors dtor, assignment)
Matrix2D (coord dimensions);
coord dimensions() const; // return height and width
const T& cell (coord position) const; // read-only access
T& cell (coord position); // read-write access
// handy synonym:
const T& operator[](coord position) const { return cell(position); }
T& operator[](coord position) { return cell(position); }
};
I just showed the public members I need: create a matrix with a given size, query the size, and indexed access to the individual elements.
So, given that, your problem description is:
template<typename T>
Matrix2D<T> scale_pow2 (const Matrix2D& input, size_t pow)
{
const auto scale_factor= 1 << pow;
const auto size_in = input.dimensions();
Matrix2D<T> result ({size_in.x*scale_factor,size_in.y*scale_factor});
⋮
⋮ // fill up result
⋮
return result;
}
OK, so now the problem is precisely defined: what code goes in the big blank immediately above?
Each cell in the input gets put into a bunch of cells in the output. So you can either iterate over the input and write a clump of cells in the output all having the same value, or you can iterate over the output and each cell you need the value for is looked up in the input.
The latter is simpler since you don't need a nested loop (or pair of loops) to write a clump.
for (coord outpos : /* ?? every cell of the output ?? */) {
coord frompos {
outpos.x >> pow,
outpos.y >> pow };
result[outpos] = input[frompos];
}
Now that's simple!
Calculating the from position for a given output must match the way the scale was defined: you will have pow bits giving the position relative to this clump, and the higher bits will be the index of where that clump came from
Now, we want to set outpos to every legal position in the output matrix indexes. That's what I need. How to actually do that is another sub-problem and can be pushed off with top-down decomposition.
a bit more advanced
Maybe nested loops is the easiest way to get that done, but I won't put those directly into this code, pushing my nesting level even deeper. And looping 0..max is not the simplest thing to write in bare C++ without libraries, so that would just be distracting. And, if you're working with matrices, this is something you'll have a general need for, including (say) printing out the answer!
So here's the double-loop, put into its own code:
struct all_positions {
coord current {0,0};
coord end;
all_positions (coord end) : end{end} {}
bool next() {
if (++current.x < end.x) return true; // not reached the end yet
current.x = 0; // reset to the start of the row
if (++current.y < end.y) return true;
return false; // I don't have a valid position now.
}
};
This does not follow the iterator/collection API that you could use in a range-based for loop. For information on how to do that, see my article on Code Project or use the Ranges stuff in the C++20 standard library.
Given this "old fashioned" iteration helper, I can write the loop as:
all_positions scanner {output.dimensions}; // starts at {0,0}
const auto& outpos= scanner.current;
do {
⋮
} while (scanner.next());
Because of the simple implementation, it starts at {0,0} and advancing it also tests at the same time, and it returns false when it can't advance any more. Thus, you have to declare it (gives the first cell), use it, then advance&test. That is, a test-at-the-end loop. A for loop in C++ checks the condition before each use, and advances at the end, using different functions. So, making it compatible with the for loop is more work, and surprisingly making it work with the ranged-for is not much more work. Separating out the test and advance the right way is the real work; the rest is just naming conventions.
As long as this is "custom", you can further modify it for your needs. For example, add a flag inside to tell you when the row changed, or that it's the first or last of a row, to make it handy for pretty-printing.
summary
You need a bunch of things working in addition to the little piece of code you actually want to write. Here, it's a usable Matrix class. Very often, it's prompting for input, opening files, handling command-line options, and that kind of stuff. It distracts from the real problem, so get that out of the way first.
Write your code (the real code you came for) in its own function, separate from any other stuff you also need in order to house it. Get it elsewhere if you can; it's not part of the lesson and just serves as a distraction. Worse, it may be "hard" in ways you are not prepared for (or to do well) as it's unrelated to the actual lesson being worked on.
Figure out the algorithm (flowchart, pseudocode, whatever) in a general way before translating that to legal syntax and API on the objects you are using. If you're just learning C++, don't get bogged down in the formal syntax when you are trying to figure out the logic. Until you naturally start to think in C++ when doing that kind of planning, don't force it. Use whiteboard doodles, tinkertoys, whatever works for you.
Get feedback and review of the idea, the logic of how to make it happen, from your peers and mentors if available, before you spend time coding. Why write up an idea that doesn't work? Fix the logic, not the code.
Finally, sketch the needed control flow, functions and data structures you need. Use pseudocode and placeholder notes.
Then fill in the placeholders and replace the pseudo with the legal syntax. You already planned it out, so now you can concentrate on learning the syntax and library details of the programming language. You can concentrate on "how do I express (some tiny detail) in C++" rather than keeping the entire program in your head. More generally, isolate a part that you will be learning; be learning/practicing one thing without worrying about the entire edifice.
To a large extent, some of those ideas translate to the code as well. Top-Down Design means you state things at a high level and then implement that elsewhere, separately. It makes code readable and maintainable, as well as easier to write in the first place. Functions should be written this way: the function explains how to do (what it does) as a list of details that are just one level of detail further down. Each of those steps then becomes a new function. Functions should be short and expressed at one semantic level of abstraction. Don't dive down into the most primitive details inside the function that explains the task as a set of simpler steps.
Good luck, and keep it up!

C++ Avoiding Triple Pointers

I am trying to create an array of X pointers referencing matrices of dimensions Y by 16. Is there any way to accomplish this in C++ without the use of triple pointers?
Edit: Adding some context for the problem.
There are a number of geometries on the screen, each with a transform that has been flattened to a 1x16 array. Each snapshot represents the transforms for each of number of components. So the matrix dimensions are 16 by num_components by num_snapshots , where the latter two dimensions are known at run-time. In the end, we have many geometries with motion applied.
I'm creating a function that takes a triple pointer argument, though I cannot use triple pointers in my situation. What other ways can I pass this data (possibly via multiple arguments)? Worst case, I thought about flattening this entire 3D matrix to an array, though it seems like a sloppy thing to do. Any better suggestions?
What I have now:
function(..., double ***snapshot_transforms, ...)
What I want to accomplish:
function (..., <1+ non-triple pointer parameters>, ...)
Below isn't the function I'm creating that takes the triple pointer, but shows what the data is all about.
static double ***snapshot_transforms_function (int num_snapshots, int num_geometries)
{
double component_transform[16];
double ***snapshot_transforms = new double**[num_snapshots];
for (int i = 0; i < num_snapshots; i++)
{
snapshot_transforms[i] = new double*[num_geometries];
for (int j = 0; j < num_geometries; j++)
{
snapshot_transforms[i][j] = new double[16];
// 4x4 transform put into a 1x16 array with dummy values for each component for each snapshot
for (int k = 0; k < 16; k++)
snapshot_transforms[i][j][k] = k;
}
}
return snapshot_transforms;
}
Edit2: I cannot create new classes, nor use C++ features like std, as the exposed function prototype in the header file is getting put into a wrapper (that doesn't know how to interpret triple pointers) for translation to other languages.
Edit3: After everyone's input in the comments, I think going with a flattened array is probably the best solution. I was hoping there would be some way to split this triple pointer and organize this complex data across multiple data pieces neatly using simple data types including single pointers. Though I don't think there is a pretty way of doing this given my caveats here. I appreciate everyone's help =)
It is easier, better, and less error prone to use an std::vector. You are using C++ and not C after all. I replaced all of the C-style array pointers with vectors. The typedef doublecube makes it so that you don't have to type vector<vector<vector<double>>> over and over again. Other than that the code basically stays the same as what you had.
If you don't actually need dummy values I would remove that innermost k loop completely. reserve will reserve the memory space that you need for the real data.
#include <vector>
using std::vector; // so we can just call it "vector"
typedef vector<vector<vector<double>>> doublecube;
static doublecube snapshot_transforms_function (int num_snapshots, int num_geometries)
{
// I deleted component_transform. It was never used
doublecube snapshot_transforms;
snapshot_transforms.reserve(num_snapshots);
for (int i = 0; i < num_snapshots; i++)
{
snapshot_transforms.at(i).reserve(num_geometries);
for (int j = 0; j < num_geometries; j++)
{
snapshot_transforms.at(i).at(j).reserve(16);
// 4x4 transform put into a 1x16 array with dummy values for each component for each snapshot
for (int k = 0; k < 16; k++)
snapshot_transforms.at(i).at(j).at(k) = k;
}
}
return snapshot_transforms;
}
Adding a little bit of object-orientation usually makes the code easier to manage -- for example, here's some code that creates an array of 100 Matrix objects with varying numbers of rows per Matrix. (You could vary the number of columns in each Matrix too if you wanted to, but I left them at 16):
#include <vector>
#include <memory> // for shared_ptr (not strictly necessary, but used in main() to avoid unnecessarily copying of Matrix objects)
/** Represents a (numRows x numCols) 2D matrix of doubles */
class Matrix
{
public:
// constructor
Matrix(int numRows = 0, int numCols = 0)
: _numRows(numRows)
, _numCols(numCols)
{
_values.resize(_numRows*_numCols);
std::fill(_values.begin(), _values.end(), 0.0f);
}
// copy constructor
Matrix(const Matrix & rhs)
: _numRows(rhs._numRows)
, _numCols(rhs._numCols)
{
_values.resize(_numRows*_numCols);
std::fill(_values.begin(), _values.end(), 0.0f);
}
/** Returns the value at (row/col) */
double get(int row, int col) const {return _values[(row*_numCols)+col];}
/** Sets the value at (row/col) to the specified value */
double set(int row, int col, double val) {return _values[(row*_numCols)+col] = val;}
/** Assignment operator */
Matrix & operator = (const Matrix & rhs)
{
_numRows = rhs._numRows;
_numCols = rhs._numCols;
_values = rhs._values;
return *this;
}
private:
int _numRows;
int _numCols;
std::vector<double> _values;
};
int main(int, char **)
{
const int numCols = 16;
std::vector< std::shared_ptr<Matrix> > matrixList;
for (int i=0; i<100; i++) matrixList.push_back(std::make_shared<Matrix>(i, numCols));
return 0;
}

c++ matrix insert value using iterators (homework)

I'm pretty new to C++ and got an assignment to make a matrix using only STL containers. I've used a vector (rows) of vectors (columns). The problem I'm having is in the 'write' operation - for which I may only use an iterator-based implementation. Problem is, quite simply: it writes nothing.
I've tested with a matrix filled with different values, and while the iterator ends up on exactly the right spot, it doesn't change the value.
Here's my code:
void write(matrix mat, int row, int col, int input)
{
assert(row>=0 && col>=0);
assert(row<=mat.R && col<=mat.C);
//I set up the iterators.
vector<vector<int> >::iterator rowit;
vector<int>::iterator colit;
rowit = mat.rows.begin();
//I go to the row.
for(int i = 0; i<row-1; ++i)
{
++rowit;
}
colit = rowit->begin();
//I go to the column.
for(int j = 0; j<col-1; ++j)
{
++colit;
}
*colit = input; //Does nothing.
}
What am I overlooking?
Thanks.
matrix mat is a parameter by value, it copies the matrix and hence you are writing to a copy.
You should pass the matrix by reference instead, like matrix & mat.
But wait... You are passing the matrix every time as the first parameter, this is a bad sign!
This usually indicates that the parameter should be turned into an object on which you can run the methods; that way, you don't need to pass the parameter at all. So, create a Matrix class instead.
Please note that there is std::vector::operator[].
So, you could just do it like this:
void write(matrix & mat, int row, int col, int input)
{
assert(row>=0 && col>=0);
assert(row<=mat.R && col<=mat.C);
mat[row][col] = input;
}