Question: Can a contract creation sender be dead but non-empty?

[hacker-DOM]

The YP contains the following formula (currently (86)):

the condition in the first case can be described as "dead but not-empty" (DBNE) (empty is defined as all fields being empty, as opposed to the entire account being empty)

The sender of a top-level transaction cannot be DBNE per the second formula of a transaction validation function (currently (59)):

It also seems clear that a contract creation through EVM code cannot come from a DBNE account, both during initialization and during regular execution (also in the cases of selfdestructs), so this case should never occur?

Is there a meaning to this case that I am missing, or is it intended for future-proofness?

[yperbasis]

The YP is not accurate in prohibiting transactions from non-existing senders; historically there have been such with 0 gas price. I've created PR #822 to amend the YP.

[axic]

So this issue should be closed via #822?