With b17i, the comments/notes are reported, as shown (even the gene comment):

Regarding your last point, this is not a bug. I explain:

Presently, within the codes in Lang.vbs, the union entries (2 in your case) are collected into a Genocollection and processed one after the other starting with the 1st entry in the union list. If you move/set your actual 2nd entry/union as first in the list, your 2 entries will be processed correctly (the earliest ceremony first) and the "Subsequently they", when processing the 2nd ceremony entry, will be correct and appropriate. It is therefore, as with b17i, the User's responsibilities to set his/her unions in the proper order within the list.

It's up to Ron, but perhaps a sort option could be implemented within the codes, but to one condition: for the sort option to be fully working and efficient, the dates of all unions must be input and different. Otherwise, the sorting routine will not work. I propose these 3 alternatives:

1) If all dates are present and different in all unions, then -> collMarriages.SortBy("date")

or

2) perhaps, easier to do than 1) above, the "Subsequently" word could be changed into "In addition, Additionally, Also, Further, Furthermore, ...

or also

3) Not to modify Lang.vbs or Dic.xml and, upon clicking on the OK button, Genopro could flag a message warning the User that his/her entries are not properly chronologically ordered.

I agree the comments appear in the report, but they relate to each marriage.

I believe this is a bug, otherwise the option to change the order of marriages would not exist (the order can be by importance rather than date).

This is a good suggestion which would accomodate all eventualities.

I think that discussed problem has relations to my topic about "Additional spouses" in the report generator (in "How to" chapter of this forum).

Thing is that if you have two individuals married and both before had sposes (divorced) and they hyperlinked from different genomaps - in the report they would be shown as

First marriage then

Second marriage

and then Third marriage but with data identical to first or second one.

I understand it makes little sense to merge some identical records.  A few weeks ago, we had a meeting regarding the validity of merging identical education records, as well other type of records such as occupation and union.

Jean-Claude and I both agree GenoPro should not merge identical Union records.  At the moment, the code remains unmodified until Beta 19 (complete revision of XML tags).  During Beta 19, we will give a full review of our data tags and the built-in [merge] policy for each type of objects.

Your input on this is greatly appreciated.

The code remains unmodified as of Version 2.0.0.4.  Are there plans to discontinue the merging of some objects any time soon?

We did a revision and could not find a tangible benefit of not merging identical objects.  As a result, the Union object is automatically merged with another identical Union.  Is this a problem?  If this causes a problem, please let me know.  I am willing to create a private build so you can test the non-merging version of GenoPro.

I believe the union object represents the 'unique' relationship between 2 individuals.  Therefore, it would not be merged, and it would have its own ID.

To make an analogy, if 2 family objects were identical (i.e. names, births, deaths, children), but were infact different families, should they be merged?  Should they share the same ID.

In this case, if union objects are merged, then they seems to represent a type of relationship.  Perhaps I am understanding the union object incorrectly.