changes

Transactions/010_transaction_names.sql

+SET NOCOUNT ON
 /*
 	According to BOL (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms188929.aspx) named transactions 
 	must adhere to the rules for identifiers, except names will be truncated at 32 characters.  

Transactions/011_transaction_names.sql

+SET NOCOUNT ON
 /*
 	According to BOL (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms188929.aspx) named transactions 
 	must adhere to the rules for identifiers, except names will be truncated at 32 characters.  

Transactions/030_implicit_tx.sql

+SET NOCOUNT ON
 /*
 	In this example SQL Server will help you if you mismatch your BEGIN and COMMIT TRAN statements.
 
@@ -7,8 +8,8 @@
 	But this behavior does not work when using implicit transactions
 
 	Demo:
-		1)EXEC Wrapper 1 with implicit_transactions OFF...note that Error 266 is thrown
-		2)EXEC Wrapper 0 with implicit_transactions OFF...note that Error 266 is thrown
+		1)EXEC Wrapper 1 with implicit_transactions OFF...note that Error 266 is thrown, transaction "dangled"
+		2)EXEC Wrapper 0 with implicit_transactions OFF...note that Error 266 is thrown, transaction rolled back
 		3)EXEC Wrapper 0 with implicit_transactions ON...Error 3902 occurs in Wrapper Procedure
 		3)EXEC Wrapper 1 with implicit_transactions ON...in this case no error is thrown and we "dangled" a transaction
 

Transactions/031_implicit_tx.sql

@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@
 
 	Demo:
 		1)Error:  "BatchProcessing cannot be called in the context of an open transaction"
-		2)Even with SET IMPLICIT_TRANSACTIONS ON everything works correctly.  (Line 63-64)
+		2)Even with SET IMPLICIT_TRANSACTIONS ON everything works correctly.  (Line 70)
 		3)But does not function correctly without the wrapper (Line 70-71).  Note that we have 2
 			transactions.  
 

Transactions/033_implicit_tx.sql

+SET NOCOUNT ON
 /*
 	This further demos how to check if you are running under 
 	implicit transactions (IT) and some of the consequences 

Transactions/README.MD

 Transaction Trivia
+======================
 
 Did you ever notice that sp_reset_connection is called A LOT? 
 Did you ever see an "orphaned spid" with an open transaction that caused you massive blocking?