[lojban] "pu" versus "pu ku" and LR(1)

[Robin Lee Powell <rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org>]

Both the official parser choke on

    mi pu ge klama le zarci gi tervecnu lo cidja

but are fine with

    mi pu ku ge klama le zarci gi tervecnu lo cidja

In the latter case, "pu ku" is descended from "term" and the rest is
"gek-sentence".

This is *exactly* what my parser does with the first case.

Am I correct in my belief that there is absolutely nothing wrong with
accepting the first case, given the infinite lookahead required to
realize that the remainder is a gek-sentence and that the pu *must* end
immediately?

In other words, is the fact that the first case doesn't work a pure
LR(1) issue, or am I missing some ambiguity that allowing the first case
introduces?

-Robin

-- 
Me: http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/  ***   I'm a *male* Robin.
"Constant neocortex override is the only thing that stops us all
from running out and eating all the cookies."  -- Eliezer Yudkowsky
http://www.lojban.org/             ***              .i cimo'o prali .ui