NumberField and CssField are the same visual (a bordered field + input +
increment/decrement triggers + scrubber, split/stacked layouts, sizes/
variants/colors, themeable glyphs); only their value model differs. They
were two cloned recipes + CSS that drifted — a refinement to one (square
flush buttons, divider, contrast) didn't reach the other.
Unify into ONE shared source (the toggle-group structural-identity pattern):
- New eidos/components/spin-field: recipe key `spin-field` (`--spin-field-*`)
+ spin-field.css with all the stepper-field rules, selecting `[data-spin-
field*]`. Loaded via the foundation @import in index.css.
- number-field + css-field morfos declare structural identity (`data-spin-
field*` presence attrs on each part). The Provider emits them via syncAttrs;
the sub-parts emit them in their soma `props` getter (number-field's soma
hardcodes sub-part attrs rather than syncing the morfo).
- Removed the `number-field` / `css-field` recipe keys; their CSS files are
now stubs. A theme tints one component by scoping `[data-number-field] {
--spin-field-… }`.
- css-field thereby adopts number-field's refined steppers (square, flush,
divider) — the drift fix the user asked for, now structural (no clone).
Verified bit-for-bit in browser: number-field identical to baseline (split
flush, stacked symmetric xs..xl, RTL, glyph token/children override);
css-field now square/flush/divider. eidos-lint invalid 0; recipe contract
passes (no orphans, loads-once); check + morfo:check clean for these.
Docs: THEMING sections 33 (glyph tokens now `--spin-field-*`) + 34 (the
shared layer); number-field / css-field READMEs.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
dev
3c059ff087