A3-3-2 Contradictory examples?

[cgpzs]

In Rule A3-3-2, there's an example with "class A" which has a non-constexpr, user-defined constructor. 

On line 31, we have a compliant example:

Code:

A instance{}; // Compliant - constant (value) initialization

However, on line 37 it's no longer compliant:

Code:

static A a{}; // Non-compliant - A’s default c’tor is not constexpr

There seems to be a contradiction here. Either the code is doing value initialization, or it's calling a constructor, but not both. Which one is it?

In other words, it seems like both examples are doing the same thing, so both should either be compliant or non-compliant. Would you agree?

[misra cpp]

This appears to be an error, thanks for pointing it out.

Line 31 should be non-compliant, for the same reason as line 37

[cgpzs]

This appears to be an error, thanks for pointing it out.

Line 31 should be non-compliant, for the same reason as line 37

I agree, thanks for the clarification!