   ;; Firstly, if the recipe is only provided as a package name, and
   ;; we've already converted it before, then we should just return the
   ;; previous result. This has nothing to do with efficiency; it's
-  ;; actually to reduce conflicts. There are two common cases:
+  ;; actually to reduce conflicts. There are a couple of common cases:
   ;;
   ;; 1. I'm overriding the standard recipe for a package with a custom
   ;;    recipe, and then loading a second package that requires the

  ;;    of code, you can specify your custom recipe in the first
  ;;    `use-package' declaration and then specify only `auctex' as
  ;;    the recipe in the second `use-package' declaration.
  (or (and (symbolp melpa-style-recipe)
           (gethash (symbol-name melpa-style-recipe) straight--recipe-cache))
      (let* (;; It's important to remember whether the recipe was

            ;; in order to byte-compile properly.
            (straight--add-package-to-load-path recipe)
            (straight--maybe-load-build-cache)
            (when
                (or
                 (and
                  straight--packages-to-rebuild
                  (or (eq straight--packages-to-rebuild :all)
                      (gethash package straight--packages-to-rebuild))
                  (not (gethash package straight--packages-not-to-rebuild))
                  ;; The following form returns non-nil, so it doesn't
                  ;; affect the `and' logic.
                  (puthash package t straight--packages-not-to-rebuild))
                 (straight--package-might-be-modified-p recipe))
              (straight--build-package recipe cause))
            (straight--maybe-save-build-cache)
            ;; Here we are not actually trying to build the
