If we contrast list initialization of an aggregate and direct initialization of an aggregate, if I don’t specify initializers for all fields, then I suppose the following applies:

For a non-union aggregate, each element that is not an explicitly initialized element is initialized as follows:

* If the element has a default member initializer, the element is initialized from that initializer.
(since C++11)
* Otherwise, if the element is not a reference, the element is copy-initialized from an empty initializer list.
* Otherwise, the program is ill-formed.

otherwise, if the destination type is a (possibly cv-qualified)
aggregate class, it is initialized as described in aggregate
initialization except that narrowing conversions are permitted,
designated initializers are not allowed, a temporary bound to a
reference does not have its lifetime extended, there is no brace
elision, and any elements without an initializer are
value-initialized.

My question is, what is the difference between copy initialization from an empty initializer list and value-initialization? Maybe a change of language would be in order?