Not quite sure I agree with the answer. There is a difference between what I must do and what I should do. According to the quoted article you do not...

Nice! Learned something new today.

I'd be a lot more surprised if there were more columns than that. Without a name or...

Ed Wagner (10/11/2016)

---

Okay, that's a little weird. Microsoft has updated the language to allow syntactically incorrect SQL based on popular habits. I see why they did it, but...

This is a quite uesful anomaly. It allows for easy cut'n'paste between table creation scripts, without worrying about deleting any trailing commas or having commas between constraints.

Nice'n'easy!

Funny part in the docs:

How do I invoke xxx?:-P

Nice question, but the correct answer is as usual: "It depends". In this case on the setting of ANSI_NULLS.

Good question, but a small nit-pick:

"The syntax of the batch is correct" is not really an output of the batch, but the conclusion of the parser. That message doesn't appear...

Disregarding the fact that it doesn't, of course...:-P

And also assume that it's original value for the HireDate falls within the CHECK...

Magnus Ahlkvist (9/15/2016)

---

I don't Think the correct answer is correct.

When I try to update a view (defined using WITH CHECK OPTION) with a value which makes the row fall outside...

In addition to the previous, the padding has changed on SQL 2016. It will pad with 0000, 3333 or 6667, depending on the value of the DATETIME. I suppose that...

And once again, Steve's proof-reading skills prove somewhat lackadaisical 😛

And time to get coffee 🙁

Steve has too much on his hands.