Sentence "You don't want to declare <c>USE="-java"</c> only to see that <c>java</c> is declared anyway." doesn't make much sense, IMHO. fox2mike suggested "You don't want to declare <c>USE="-java"</c> only to see that <c>java</c> is not declared in the first place."
It says what it means. More verbosely "You don't want to declare USE=-java in one place just to notice that USE=+java with higher precedence is already declared elsewhere". Of course you may want to clarify the wording so not marking as invalid.
Oh I see. So does it say that "it is declared somewhere else and with higher priority" and not what I've stated in the report? Then the wording should be made more readable...
That's how I translated it and it is in the chapter that talks about variable precedence, so I think yes, that would be the natural interpretation. But I can see how that will confuse someone who isn't used to how chaotically the use flags work ;-)
Fixed in CVS.
