text: 
  Stephan T. Lavavej has created helpful and informative videos about these language features in part 10 of his Core C++ series of videos on Channel 9.
  Installation and Usage
  After downloading and running the installer, you should be able to use the new compiler in Visual Studio 2013. We recommend that you first create a separate project configuration and modify that configuration to use the new compiler. To do so:
  - Open the “Build” menu and then select the “Configuration Manager” option.
  - In the Configuration Manager, duplicate your existing configuration.
  - Open the project’s Property Pages by pressing F7 or right clicking the project in Solution Explorer and selecting “Properties”.
  - In the “General” tab, change “Platform Toolset” from “Visual Studio 2013 (v120)” to “Visual C++ Compiler Nov 2013 CTP (CTP_Nov2013)”.
  - Rebuild your project.
  Important Notes
  Before downloading, note the following:
  - This is a Customer Technology Preview and does not come with a “Go Live” license.
  - Visual Studio 2013 is a prerequisite for using this compiler. If you don’t have Visual Studio 2013 installed, we recommend that you download the free Desktop Express edition here.
  - This package contains only the compiler and does not yet come with an updated standard library.
  - This version of the compiler is only compatible with CRT 12.0.
  - This version of the compiler can only be used as an alternative to the Visual C++ 2013 RTM compiler.
  - While a new Platform Toolset is provided for convenience of integrating the compiler as part of the Visual Studio 2013 build environment, the Visual Studio 2013 IDE, IntelliSense functionality, debugger, static analyzer, and other tools remain essentially unchanged and do not yet provide support for these new language features.
  - For a list of limitations and breaking changes introduced by this CTP compiler, consult the documentation provided on the download site. It will always include the most up-to-date information.
  We Want Your Feedback!.
  Join the conversationAdd Comment
  )
  If anybody else needs the value of _MSC_FULL_VER it's: 180021114
  On you C++ discussion: I've now been programming C++ since about the age of 13/14 (seems I'm starting my second decade next year :D) and the more I use it the more I like it!
  About aggregate initializer list bug there are some active feedbacks, for example:
  connect.microsoft.com/…/constructor-initializer-list-does-not-support-braced-init-list-form
  Active from 7/1/2013 (VS2013 Preview), without any comment or workaround from MS.
  Nicolas Silvagni: Yeah, we've got active bugs tracking those problems – DevDiv#728401 (which is Connect#792161, linked by Yuri Kravchenko) and DevDiv#747250 in our internal database.
  MFH> If anybody else needs the value of _MSC_FULL_VER it's: 180021114
  Yep.
  > I've now been programming C++ since about the age of 13/14 (seems I'm starting my second decade next year :D) and the more I use it the more I like it!
  Cool! It's an exciting time to be a C++ programmer.
  In the grand scheme of things it doesn't make things simpler, or easier, it only – maybe, sometimes – makes things a little less difficult. Best of times is when you can just hire somebody else to do it (right)(the first time).
  Will the blog system work better because of anything done any time recenty?
  Nope.
  Fin.
  Would really like to see unrestricted unions
  @simon buchan
  "If you mean C++11 doesn't provide enough over C++98 I'm not sure exactly how much you want out of your languages: it is, without exaggeration, the biggest language improvement I've ever seen! "
  Yes, but quality in programming languages is typically not related to size.
  I like many of the new features, but I think C++ has become a mess – look at the videos by Scott Meyers examining the strangeness of universal references, odd rules relating to const-ness and type guarantees, etc., etc.
  I suspect its beyond any newcomer to really understand the language fully now. That's a very sorry state of affairs. Calling it baroque is an insult to baroque which was a style of ornamenting something functional. C++ is more Palinesque now – lipstick on a ….
  @STL
  "The kind of person who needs variadic templates desperately needs and loves them. Programmers who don't need to write templates especially don't need to understand variadic templates – for them, stuff like make_shared<T>(args, args, args) just works."
  You're wrong there, I'm the kind of programmer who deperately needs variadic templates, but that's a dog of a complex feature – maybe I just haven't seen its use well explained, but the first real world application I attempted made my brain ache, and I've been using C++ for around 20 years now.
  [2-part comment incoming; VCBlog has a 3072-character limitation.]
  Rob G: Basic variadic templates are surprisingly simple. I can show you an example.
  The simple one is make_unique<T>(args, args, args) from…/n3656.htm . The implementation, ignoring unrelated trickery, is:
  template <typename T, typename… Args> unique_ptr<T> make_unique(Args&&… args) {
  return unique_ptr<T>(new T(std::forward<Args>(args)…));
  }
  Args is a "template parameter pack" and args is a "function parameter pack". One of the fundamental things about variadic templates is that the ellipsis means "zero or more". Therefore, this make_unique<T>() is callable with zero or more arguments. (If we want something to be callable for one or more arguments, we need to provide one ordinary argument followed by a parameter pack.)
  Just as you can think of an ordinary template <typename T> void meow(const T& t) as stamping out an infinite family of overloads void meow(const TypeA& ta), void meow(const TypeB& tb), etc. (this is not strictly correct, but it's much closer to the truth than thinking of templates as macros which they are decidedly not), you can think of a variadic template as stamping out an infinite family of ordinary templates. So you can imagine this as stamping out make_unique<T>(), make_unique<T>(Arg0&& arg0), make_unique<T>(Arg0&& arg0, Arg1&& arg1), and so forth. Note how the rvalue reference is replicated. You can do the same thing with Args&… for lvalue references, or const Args&… for const lvalue references, and so forth. (Args… would be the simplest, taking parameters by value.)
  Then in the body, the ellipsis is used to expand the parameter packs. The idea here is that you can build an arbitrary expression referring to template parameter packs like Args and function parameter packs like args. Then when you say the ellipsis, that expression is replicated once for each thing in the pack, and comma-separated. For empty parameter packs, it disappears. So this stamps out new T(), or new T(std::forward<Arg0>(arg0)), or new T(std::forward<Arg0>(arg0), std::forward<Arg1>(arg1)), etc. This is actually a somewhat advanced example of simultaneously expanding a template parameter pack and a function parameter pack. If you took const Stuff&… stuff, you'd just say call_something(stuff…) without having to mention the Stuff types. Note that the placement of the ellipsis is critical, as it determines what is being expanded. Saying std::forward<Args>(args…) wouldn't work.
  (Variadic templates are actually smarter than I've described here; there's a bit of Standardese saying that pack expansions are well-formed for empty packs, even if the handwritten code wouldn't be; the simplest example would be template <typename… Bases> struct Derived : Bases… { }; where you want Derived : Base0, Base1, Base2, etc. If Bases is empty, then Derived has no base classes, even though saying "struct Derived : { };" would be bogus syntax.)
  There are more rules for what happens when you overload variadic templates (these typically act naturally, if you're used to how overloading ordinary templates works), and other stuff, but that's the basic idea. Setting up "recursive" variadic template function calls isn't difficult, once you understand a non-recursive example like make_unique. Ellipsis placement can be used in a variety of patterns, but you just need to start by asking what sort of ordinary signature you want, then figuring out how to declare it. For example, taking (const tuple<Types…>&) is different from taking (const tuple<Types>&…). The former takes a single const tuple<T0, T1, T2>&. The latter takes multiple (const tuple<T0>&, const tuple<T1>&, const tuple<T2>&).
  @STL, is the performance nightmare with Copy from 37:00-45:00 channel9.msdn.com/…/An-Effective-Cpp11-14-Sampler with VS2013?
  I ran the code from the Meyers' slide 18, looped through it for 50 time:
  Code:
  Output with VS2013 latest CTP installed:
  Time taken: 1628.00ms
  Time taken: 2253.00ms
  Time taken: 2159.00ms
  Time taken: 448.00ms
  Time taken: 3010.00ms
  Time taken: 775.00ms
  Time taken: 4211.00ms
  Time taken: 898.00ms
  Time taken: 45.00ms
  Time taken: 6084.00ms
  Time taken: 901.00ms
  Time taken: 371.00ms
  Time taken: 46.00ms
  Time taken: 8576.00ms
  Time taken: 955.00ms
  Time taken: 110.00ms
  Time taken: 46.00ms
  Time taken: 47.00ms
  Time taken: 48.00ms
  Time taken: 48.00ms
  Time taken: 13387.00ms
  Time taken: 776.00ms
  Time taken: 1214.00ms
  Time taken: 910.00ms
  Time taken: 50.00ms
  Time taken: 54.00ms
  Time taken: 65.00ms
  Time taken: 53.00ms
  Time taken: 47.00ms
  Time taken: 46.00ms
  Time taken: 53.00ms
  Time taken: 20659.00ms
  Time taken: 1188.00ms
  Time taken: 1004.00ms
  Time taken: 45.00ms
  Time taken: 45.00ms
  Time taken: 52.00ms
  Time taken: 52.00ms
  Time taken: 49.00ms
  Time taken: 49.00ms
  Time taken: 43.00ms
  Time taken: 52.00ms
  Time taken: 43.00ms
  Time taken: 47.00ms
  Time taken: 52.00ms
  Time taken: 49.00ms
  Time taken: 30480.00ms
  Time taken: 974.00ms
  Time taken: 1164.00ms
  Time taken: 1222.00ms
  Press any key to continue . . .
  @STL, is it faster than GCC implementation? Are all the related issues you mentioned in GoingNative resolved?
  @STL, from feature-set point of view, whats lets of C++11 in VC world to be implemented? I am seeing most C++14's new features. Is 11 fully supported now (perhaps with the exception of few bugs)?a.
  Nathan: The Nov 2013 CTP lacks the following C++11 Core Language features: expression SFINAE, attributes (including those for data-dependency ordering), constexpr on member functions, char16_t/char32_t, Unicode string literals, universal character names in literals, user-defined literals, inline namespaces, unrestricted unions, conditional noexcept, thread_local, a C99-conformant preprocessor, and a partridge in a pear tree.
  VC 2013 RTM's C++11 Standard Library support is complete modulo missing compiler features, library bugs, a small amount of C99 machinery, and a very small number of missing library features (I am aware that <exception> is missing nested_exception, throw_with_nested(), and rethrow_if_nested()).
  m.högdahl> warning C4592: 'isqrt_helper': 'constexpr' call evaluation failed; function will be called at run-time
  The compiler team has confirmed that this warning is spurious – constexpr evaluation will succeed anyways. They're filing a bug to track this, thanks!
  This (newly) fails to compile:
  #include <map>
  #include <vector>
  #include <memory>
  int main()
  {
  std::map<int, std::vector<std::unique_ptr<int>>> blahs;
  }
  Is there anything I can do as the implementor of the move-only type to get it to compile (it's not unique_ptr in real life)? Beyond "if _MSC_FULL_VER == 180021114, create a default copy constructor", which isn't too terrible, I suppose.
  Also, STL, is it knowable if the move operations of the various STL collections going to be as noexcept'y as possible (assuming _IDL==0) by the time vector becomes move_if_noexcept aware?
  My only problem with the new features is that Microsoft and other vendors implement them before the standard is finalized, and then get changed.
  I thoroughly read Stephan's posts about rvalue references, lambdas etc from back in 2010 in this forum, but they became obsolete just a year or two later because the features changed drastically. Consider that these were like 50-screen-page posts, and now all that knowledge is useless.
  I understand that the features are complex because their purpose is complex, but you can't subject programmers to re-learn them over and over, they'll just get tired and not even bother anymore with them.
  STL:
  For extended sizeof, should this example compile? GCC and Clang compile it without warnings (well, Clang gives a "this isn't compatible with C++98" warning with -Weverything, but that's to be expected). The CTP doesn't like the last three sizeof usages, but is fine with the first one. The second one is almost directly from 5.1.1.13 in n3797, the last two are internal cases encountered when switching our emulation of extended sizeof to the proper behavior.
  #include <iostream>
  struct A {
  int x;
  };
  struct B {
  double d;
  A a;
  };
  struct C {
  B b[10];
  };
  int main() {
  std::cout << sizeof(A::x) << 'n';
  std::cout << sizeof(A::x + 43) << 'n';
  std::cout << sizeof(B::a.x) << 'n';
  std::cout << sizeof(C::b[0]) << 'n';
  }
  "My only problem with the new features is that Microsoft and other vendors implement them before the standard is finalized, and then get changed. … I understand that the features are complex because their purpose is complex, but you can't subject programmers to re-learn them over and over, they'll just get tired and not even bother anymore with them."
  The standards committee prefers that there be real-life experience with the functionality before it is standardized. If you want to know why, see "export template" for what can happen when what is standardized has never been implemented.
  This CTP introduces more bugs than fixes and improvements. Sigh.
  Michael> std::map<int, std::vector<std::unique_ptr<int>>> blahs;
  I strongly suspect that this is a duplicate of the compiler bug DevDiv#813397 in our internal database. I've attached your repro to that bug.
  > Is there anything I can do as the implementor of the move-only type to get it to compile (it's not unique_ptr in real life)?
  Not to my knowledge.
  > Also, STL, is it knowable if the move operations of the various STL collections going to be as noexcept'y as possible (assuming _IDL==0) by the time vector becomes move_if_noexcept aware?
  I'll make those changes simultaneously. I can't promise anything, but I hope to be able to do this for the next major version.
  ciel> My only problem with the new features is that Microsoft and other vendors implement them before the standard is finalized, and then get changed.
  In addition to the Committee preferring implementation experience, many Standardese changes are made *because of* implementation experience.
  > Consider that these were like 50-screen-page posts, and now all that knowledge is useless.
  It's not useless, but it does have to be modified and extended.
  > you can't subject programmers to re-learn them over and over, they'll just get tired and not even bother anymore with them.
  Some programmers will keep up with technology changes, and some won't. Some programmers will find employment, and some won't.
  Seriously though, it's not clear to me whether you're wishing for anyone to be doing anything differently. Do you want MS and other vendors to implement proposed features less aggressively? Everyone else is asking us to move faster, not slower. Do you want the Committee to avoid making major changes to features after they've been voted into the Working Paper but before the Standard is finalized? That would prevent mistakes like rvalue references v1 (so dangerous!) and lambdas v1.0 and decltype v1.0 from being corrected. Do you just want the Committee and its constituent vendors to get everything right the first time, completely avoiding Working Paper churn (which is a bigger headache for implementers than users, believe me)? Sorry, but most of us are human, and mistakes are inevitable.
  Michael> For extended sizeof, should this example compile?
  It should. We've filed DevDiv#834581 for this, thanks.
  LM> This CTP introduces more bugs than fixes and improvements. Sigh.
  It would be useful if you could provide bug repros, so we could fix them. That's why we've released this alpha build.
  @STL Am I right in thinking the following should compile?
  struct A
  {
  int a1;
  int a2;
  };
  struct B
  {
  B(void) :a{ 0, 1 }{}
  A a;
  };
  int main()
  {
  B b;
  return 0;
  }
  Clang (on Windows) and GCC (on) seem to think it's ok. VS2013 and VS2013 CTP error on
  error C2661: 'A::A' : no overloaded function takes 2 arguments
  Alastair: Yeah, that's tracked by an active bug, DevDiv#728401/Connect#792161: connect.microsoft.com/…/792161
  @STL
  1) Could you please providing a hotfix for this(and only this), It has already been fixed for VS2015 but it realy needs to be done for VS2013:
  connect.microsoft.com/…/initializer-list-calls-object-destructor-twice
  2)There are questions about the constexpr in Nov CTP, i've posted at there for avoiding duplicated posts:
  blogs.msdn.com/…/c-11-14-core-language-features-in-vs-2013-and-the-nov-2013-ctp.aspx
  I was hoping for a fuller implementation of thread_local this time around to help with porting of a legacy application. Any news on when this will be complete?
  @STL
  Has the <filesystem> behaviour changed from VS2012 to VS2013/2013CTP?
  It appears that where VS2012 std::tr2::sys::directory_iterator path().string() would return the filename only. The version in VS2013 returns the full path.
  I suspect the latter is more correct but as this has broken my code on porting to VS2013 I wanted to check.
  Is there a list of bug fixes for VS2013 and VS2013CTP online somewhere?
  Simon Dan> Could you please providing a hotfix for this(and only this)
  I've already asked the compiler team to fix this in an Update, as it's silent bad codegen in a popular feature. I'll ping them again.
  > There are questions about the constexpr in Nov CTP, i've posted at there for avoiding duplicated posts:
  I've replied there.
  sjb> thread_local […] Any news on when this will be complete?
  It's on the list, but other things are higher priority.
  Alastair> The version in VS2013 returns the full path.
  Yep, that was a bug fix.
  > Is there a list of bug fixes for VS2013 and VS2013CTP online somewhere?
  See blogs.msdn.com/…/c-11-14-stl-features-fixes-and-breaking-changes-in-vs-2013.aspx for a 99% exhaustive list of the STL fixes in 2013 RTM. I don't have a list of compiler fixes, sorry.
  You encountered this one: ".)"
  IMO the code generation quality is much better than VS2012's. I've noticed about several code generation relevent bugs reported at Connect, but those are unlike any of VS2012's. I don't like/attempt to complaints about others but i still think (and IMO too) if i was them i wouldn't write the code in the ways shown on the reports and i don't even recommend someone to write their code in those way either.
  I mean that the code itself isn't good enough already, and triggering bugs are just another side effects. Even if there are never a bug waiting for any i still won't write my code in those ways.
  I realise chances of this being read by anyone are slim… but are unicode string literals / char32_t CRT support, etc coming anytime soon? Been waiting on these for almost 2 years now…
  Did some quick testing with this new release and we get a little bit further with the compilation of our TAOX11 product but still several problems, including several internal compiler errors, reported some of our basic problems through connect, added just [Torino] to all subjects.
  As suggestion, also ship a batch file like vcvars so that we can easily use a CTP release from a command prompt when using for example nmake.