(&article).legs = 99 This would not work actually because it would only be modifying the copy that exists in the inner loop of the for loop. You'd be taking a

(&article).legs = 99 This would not work actually because it would only be modifying the copy that exists in the inner loop of the for loop. You'd be taking a pointer to the for loop stack variable and modifying it. If they were already references as you first mention that way simply article.legs = 99 would work yes.