opc.three (3/16/2013)
The reason why I disagree is because of the behavior of the after trigger when it is the instead trigger that is fired first. The instead trigger fires the after trigger, but even if the after trigger does something that should fire the original instead trigger on the same table, it does not fire regardless of the values of the nested or recursive settings.In your case the after trigger fires first, but similar to the case I just described it will not fire an instead trigger on the same table regardless of the values of the nested or recursive settings.
Maybe the documentation has a hole in it, it certainly would not be the first time, but the behavior seems to be predictable and consistent. Just my two cents.
I'm not arguing that it's not predictable and consistent in the instance of SQL Server I'm currently running... But the same could be said of just about any bug in a specific instance of software. My point is that the only sort of predictable behavior we should rely upon as developers is that which can be predicted from the specification, and there is nothing in the spec indicating that the instead of trigger will not be invoked from an after trigger on the same table. Are we in agreement?