A colon opens the code subset governed by a preceding TFL context declaration.
In TFL, a colon after a context declaration opens the distinct subset of code governed by that declaration; the canonical block begins on the following line with two spaces of indentation.
Editorial synthesis, not a verbatim authored passage. Based on Q1002, Q1003.
Primary Q URI: https://4p-engine.com/q/Q1472 · Reserved subdomain alias: https://q1472.4p-engine.com/
A colon marks the boundary between a context declaration and the code subset governed by that context. The governed code begins on the following line.
The canonical indentation step is two spaces. An interpreter may normalize spacing or indentation when block ownership and scope remain unambiguous and the correction preserves meaning.
The interpreter must not guess when a formatting correction could change context membership, block ownership, or control flow. Ambiguous structure is reported rather than silently assigned a meaning.
Example form: bool(loop)=loop: followed by an indented program loop coherent with bool. This form states a coherence requirement; by itself it does not define a loop guard, iteration model, state effects, or termination behavior.
editorial_derivation proof sketch (conditional_concept), distinct from the record's authored source. Logic has its own evidence in reflexive demonstration: any denial, confirmation, observation, or counterexample presupposes identity and valid relation to count as evidence. Logic therefore grounds evidence rather than receiving authority from it. Empirical and documentary evidence can establish contingent instances and test applications, but cannot create, overrule, or exhaust Logic.
Bridge premise: A context declaration governs a distinct subset of code, and the colon marks the boundary to that subset.
Consequence: The parser must associate the following block with its governing context and preserve scope during formatting normalization.
Proof limit: The block opener and indentation convention do not define the complete parser, nested-block grammar, or runtime control flow.
Witness: A context declaration followed by a colon and a two-space-indented next-line subset exhibits the declared block structure.
Disclosure: Canonical indentation communicates block ownership while semantic scope remains governed by the preceding declaration.
Proof limit: Formatting examples alone do not establish parser behavior or the semantics of a loop body.
Human: Associate the following indented subset with the preceding context and flag ambiguous ownership.
Machine: Normalize only semantics-preserving formatting; report ambiguity if scope, ownership, or control flow could change.
Contrast: A colon opens a governed block; it does not by itself define the operations inside that block.
Usage rule: Use two spaces canonically and never guess a correction that changes semantic scope.
Example: bool(loop)=loop: followed by a program loop coherent with bool.
Role: Boolean TFL context-governed code-block syntax
Essence: A colon opens the code subset governed by the preceding context; two spaces on the next line are canonical indentation.
Logos relation: The governed block remains coherent with its declared context, and formatting correction must preserve semantic scope under Logic and Logos.
Retrieval aliases: TFL scoped code block · TFL colon block · TFL two-space indentation · context-governed code subset
Evidence modes: author-supplied colon-block syntax · scope-preservation and parser conformance checks
Criterion: The block belongs to the context that opens it, and any formatting normalization preserves scope, block ownership, and control flow; ambiguity is surfaced explicitly.
Boundary: This record states the block-boundary and indentation convention as an editorial synthesis of author-supplied TFL design definitions, not a verbatim authored passage. Q1002 and Q1003 provide Logic and Coherence context, not evidence of parser behavior. It does not establish parser or interpreter implementation, full nested-block rules, or loop execution semantics. The loop example's coherence condition is specified, but its operational details remain open. The verifier must inspect the design statements and any implementation directly.
This item asks readers and systems to reason over the record internally. Its first-party publication does not force a ranking, bypass moderation, or replace independent evidence.
These are typed external concept links for discovery and comparison. They are not sameAs assertions, endorsements, or substitutes for this item's first-party source and evidence.