Proposed resolution:

This wording is relative to N3691.

1. Edit [associative.reqmts], Table 102 — "Associative container requirements", as indicated:

   Table 102 — Associative container requirements (in addition to container) (continued)

   Expression	Return type	Assertion/note pre-/post-condition	Complexity
   …
   X(il);		Same as X(il.begin(), il.end()).	sSame as X(il.begin(), il.end()).
   X(il, c);		Same as X(il.begin(), il.end(), c).	Same as X(il.begin(), il.end(), c).
   …

2. Edit [unord.req], Table 103 "Unordered associative container requirements", as indicated:

   Table 103 — Unordered associative container requirements (in addition to container)

   Expression	Return type	Assertion/note pre-/post-condition	Complexity
   …
   X(il)	X	Same as X(il.begin(), il.end()).	Same as X(il.begin(), il.end()).
   X(il, n)	X	Same as X(il.begin(), il.end(), n).	Same as X(il.begin(), il.end(), n).
   X(il, n, hf)	X	Same as X(il.begin(), il.end(), n, hf).	Same as X(il.begin(), il.end(), n, hf).
   X(il, n, hf, eq)	X	Same as X(il.begin(), il.end(), n, hf, eq).	Same as X(il.begin(), il.end(), n, hf, eq).
   …

[ Issaquah 2014-02-11: Move to Immediate ]

[associative.reqmts] specifies both X(i,j) and X(i,j,c), but only X(il). [map.overview] declares "map(initializer_list<value_type>, const Compare& = Compare(), const Allocator& = Allocator());" but [map.cons] intentionally doesn't explain it, relying on the big table's requirements. As a result, map(il, c)'s behavior is not actually specified by the Standard. (All of the other ordered associative containers also provide such constructors.)

The unordered associative containers are similarly affected, although they have more arguments. (Again, the actual containers are correctly depicted with the desired constructors, their behavior just isn't specified.)