> An empty initializer list should reasonably behave like a default constructor True. But an empty initializer list should also behave like, you know, the con

> An empty initializer list should reasonably behave like a default constructor True. But an empty initializer list should also behave like, you know, the constructor which uses an initializer list. C++ is in the unfortunate position of having to choose one behaviour or the other. Either choice is reasonable, but both can be confusing.