There’s no point in analyzing typedef
behavior on the basis of textual replacement. Typedef-names are not macros, they are not replaced textually.
As you noted yourself
typedef CHARS const CPTR;
is the same thing as
typedef const CHARS CPTR;
This is so for the very same reason why
typedef const int CI;
has the same meaning as
typedef int const CI;
Typedef-name don’t define new types (only aliases to existing ones), but they are “atomic” in a sense that any qualifiers (like const
) apply at the very top level, i.e. they apply to the entire type hidden behind the typedef-name. Once you defined a typedef-name, you can’t “inject” a qualifier into it so that it would modify any deeper levels of the type.