Pointer confusion

I feel confusion about pointers which I would like to remove.

Code:

void SomeClass::ConvertAndForward( int numbers, int targetvar )	
{
	//Send to member variable
	targetvar = numbers;

	


}

When I call this function with:
ConvertAndForward(10, m_ivariable);

Will the above method successfully change m_ivariable? As in, put it through the function, modify it and put in back in place with the new value?

Or do I need a pointer version like so:

Code:

//called with ConvertAndForward(10, ptarget);
void SomeClass::ConvertAndForward( int numbers, int *pointer_to_targetvar )	
{
	//Send to member variable
	pointer_to_targetvar = numbers;//This produces an error

//error C2440: '=' : cannot convert from 'int' to 'int *'

}

Will the above method successfully change m_ivariable? As in, put it through the function, modify it and put in back in place with the new value?

If m_ivariable is being changed from within the class, you don't need to pass it around, as all class methods will have access. If a friend class needs to change the member variable, you should pass in an object instead.

Or do I need a pointer version like so:

Anyway, the first version in your post uses pass by value semantics, so the function will modify a copy of the argument and you would have to return the modified variable to see the effects. Your second version would work if you used references instead of pointers, and frankly I see no reason not to use references. Here is a fixed version anyway. Change the function that uses pointers like so:

Code:

*pointer_to_targetvar = numbers;

Code:

void SomeClass::ConvertAndForward( int numbers, int* pointer_to_targetvar )
{
    //Send to member variable
    *pointer_to_targetvar = numbers; // Remember to dereference and not change the address
}

// Or...

void SomeClass::ConvertAndForward( int numbers, int& pointer_to_targetvar )
{
    //Send to member variable
    pointer_to_targetvar = numbers; // Works just as is
}

*pointer_to_targetvar = numbers; // Remember to dereference and not change the address

The comment is not correct; assigning an integer to a pointer is an error, and will not change the address.

The reference version doesn't compile as of this writing, either.

Originally Posted by whiteflags

The comment is not correct; assigning an integer to a pointer is an error, and will not change the address.

You are right. I was considering the concept. You don't want to change the address, ie what it is pointing to, but want to actually change the value of what it is pointing to.

The reference version doesn't compile as of this writing, either.

I honestly have no idea how I made that syntax error... Anyway, fixed. Thanks for pointing out that.

Originally Posted by Jefff

Will the above method successfully change m_ivariable?

No, definitely not.

Or do I need a pointer version like so:

No, you don't.

What you want is to just modify the member variable directly, without passing it in at all. I.e. Just do m_ivariable = numbers;