Re: static initialization order fiasco

When I was checking this:
http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/ctors.html#faq-10.12
(questions until 10.16)

This code:

//////////////////////////////////////////////////
#include <iostream>
#include <memory>

class a
{
    public:
        a() { std::cout<<"a()"<<std::endl; }

        ~a() { std::cout<<"~a()"<<std::endl; }
};
class b
{
    public:
        b() { std::cout<<"b()"<<std::endl; }

        ~b() { std::cout<<"~b()"<<std::endl; }
};
class c
{
    public:
        static a& k()
        {
            static std::auto_ptr< a > p( new a );
            return *p;
        }
        static b& j()
        {
            static b* p( new b );
            return *p;
        }
};
int main()
{
    c::k();
    c::j();
}
//////////////////////////////////////////////////

the output is:
a()
b()
~a()

So, the question is why the faq doesn't suggest this solution (with
auto_ptr) to the static initialization order fiasco?