Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not to be rude, but I'm glad I don't work where you work. How would that be consistent with your own classes? "Oh no, you can't just use a 'Tree' object, you need to explicitly set that there are no leaves yet, no branches yet, no squirrels yet, etc… etc…" Do you .clear() your vectors before you use them? This sounds like newbies that do: #define TRUE (1 == 1)
It's not about initialization, it's more about specifying clearly what happens in all cases. Anyway the reason for which it would no pass review is that today you use one compiler, tomorrow you have to use another and then you have to review all these little details again. It's about saving money more than anything and you do that by not relying on compiler behavior.
std::string pad = descriptive_name_here(path);
with the added bonus of being able to add "const" to that, for the benefit of the reader.
This is not relying on compiler implementation! Can you name one language that has strings that initialise to anything but a valid object containing an empty string?
This is not an obscure side-effect. This is like assuming "std::vector v;" creates an empty vector, not a undefined-state vector container.
(I don't want someone coding C++ as if all objects are references. Coding in one language as if it were another is a well-known antipattern)