No, that reasoning is unsatisfactory. It would explain why A a; or A a(21, 37) calls A(); and A(int p, int q); respectively despite presence of A(std::initializ

No, that reasoning is unsatisfactory. It would explain why A a; or A a(21, 37) calls A(); and A(int p, int q); respectively despite presence of A(std::initializer_list<int> l), but the initializer list constructor should still be called when one writes A a{} and A a{21, 37}. That would be consistent and predictable.