Firstly, sample codes:
Case 1:
typedef char* CHARS;
typedef CHARS const CPTR; // constant pointer to chars
Textually replacing CHARS becomes:
typedef char* const CPTR; // still a constant pointer to chars
Case 2:
typedef char* CHARS;
typedef const CHARS CPTR; // constant pointer to chars
Textually replacing CHARS becomes:
typedef const char* CPTR; // pointer to constant chars
In case 2, after textually replacing CHARS, the meaning of the typedef changed. Why is this so? How does C++ interpret this definition?
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.