doc: update child process document

[ghost]

update the description of stream in options.stdio.

Fixes: #15714

[Trott]

I'm not sure what the sentence starting with "Because" is saying. Is anyone else having the same problem? Does it need to be re-worded a little bit?

[ghost]

thank you very much! I'll check around

[ghost]

"Because the stream is already piped (data is piped from the stdio to the stream)" replace by "Because the stream is already piped to stdio". Would this be better?

[Trott]

I think that's a bit more clear but it's still not a complete sentence and mildly puzzling. Maybe it's the "Because" that's throwing me off? Does this seem correct to you?

Suggested change

	occurred). Because the stream is already piped (data is piped from the
	stdio to the stream), thus stopping its readable side, otherwise we
	might read data from the stream when at the same time the child
	process does. If you want to pass a handle to child process, you can
	occurred). The stream is already piped to stdio, thus stopping its readable
	side. Otherwise we might read data from the stream at the same time that the
	child process does. If you want to pass a handle to child process, you can

[ghost]

Thanks for you help! You consideration is correct, I didn't describe it clearly. Or how about this?
"we need to stop its readable side, because the stream is already piped to the stdio."

[Trott]

I fell like there's a subtly I might be missing here. Maybe someone from @nodejs/child_process can take a look and confirm or suggest language?

[Trott]

I fell like there's a subtly I might be missing here. Maybe someone from @nodejs/child_process can take a look and confirm or suggest language?

Maybe someone from @nodejs/documentation?

[Trott]

Welcome, @w2k-lab, and thanks for the pull request. We'll want to make the first line of the commit message more descriptive. Maybe this?

doc: improve stream in child_process stdio option

Update the description of stream in options.stdio.

[Trott]

@marsonya marsonya requested a review from Trott 13 hours ago

I'm sorry. I honestly don't understand what the added text is trying to communicate. I think "stop its readable" is supposed to be "stops it readable" and that "avoid read from" is supposed to be "avoid reading from". But it's also possible that I am not understanding what is being communicated and the current proposed text is right.