[dcl.init.aggr] Bad phrase "empty initializer list"

[h0nzZik]

The section [dcl.init.aggr] uses the phrases "empty initializer list" and "empty initializer-list" (paragraphs 5.2, 5.5, 9, and the footnote in paragraph 9). It may be in another places, too. I believe the phrase is nonsensical, since initializer-list as defined by the grammar in paragraph 1 of [dcl.init] can be never empty. Also, the paragraph 9 of [dcl.init.aggr] talks about

[...] empty initializer list {} [...]

I guess that it should talk about braced-init-list, not about initializer-list.

[jensmaurer]

I agree this should say "empty braced-init-list", although "initializer list" reads nicer.

[cpplearner]

Per [dcl.init.list]/1, an initializer list is a braced-init-list used as an initializer:

List-initialization is initialization of an object or reference from a braced-init-list. Such an initializer is called an initializer list, and the comma-separated initializer-clauses of the initializer-list or designated-initializer-clauses of the designated-initializer-list are called the elements of the initializer list. An initializer list may be empty.

[jensmaurer]

Good point. So, the phrasing is good as-is; the only remaining issue is whether we anywhere talk about an "empty initializer-list", which would not make sense. Ah, the footnote in [dcl.init.aggr] does that, so that is the only place that needs fixing.