doc: fix explanation of package.json "type" field

[tamias]

Remove erroneous reference to files with .mjs extension, which are not affected by the "type" field.

Checklist

• documentation is changed or added
• commit message follows commit guidelines

[BridgeAR]

@nodejs/modules-active-members PTAL

[GeoffreyBooth]

I'm not sure that this is an improvement. I think it's important for users to know that both .js and .mjs files are treated as ES modules within the module package scope. That's not as obvious if .mjs isn't mentioned, and potentially confusing if .mjs is mentioned only as being unaffected by the field.

[tamias]

@GeoffreyBooth.mjs files are already mentioned earlier in the file:

Once enabled, Node.js will treat the following as ES modules when passed to
node as the initial input, or when referenced by import statements within
ES module code:

• Files ending in .mjs.
• Files ending in .js, or extensionless files, when the nearest parent
  package.json file contains a top-level field "type" with a value of
  "module".
• Strings passed in as an argument to --eval or --print, or piped to
  node via STDIN, with the flag --input-type=module.

The edited paragraph documents the "type" field specifically. The original text implies that the "type" field affects how .mjs files are loaded, which contradicts the quoted text.

[gireeshpunathil]

ping @GeoffreyBooth

[GeoffreyBooth]

I disagree with this change. While the field may not affect .mjs files, I think it's important to say that they still behave as ES modules in a type: module scope.

[bmeck]

I do not find the removal to improve clarity or ease of searching for information.

[tamias]

How about, in addition to this change, adding a sentence in the type section along the lines of:

Regardless of the value of "type", .mjs files are always treated as ES modules and .cjs files are always treated as CommonJS modules.

[bmeck]

@tamias that seems fine

[Trott]

@bmeck Does this change look OK to you now?

@tamias Can you give this a rebase to eliminate the conflict?

[bmeck]

@Trott lgtm

[tamias]

I was already working on the rebase. 😛

A separate paragraph had already been added at the end of that doc section; in the rebase I put my sentence after that paragraph. Still look okay that way?

[bmeck]

seems fine

[Trott]

@GeoffreyBooth Does this change look OK to you now? Or is it still problematic from your point of view?

[GeoffreyBooth]

Looks good now, thanks!

[BridgeAR]

Landed in 76d4a23

@tamias congratulations on your first commit to Node.js! 🎉