stream: handling invalid stream arguments in stream.pipeline()

A few "what goes where"-related inconsistencies with stream.pipeline(). Validation of stream objects is very hit-and-miss:

Passing this:	as this:	should do this:	and does this:
Non-readable Node stream	source	Should be rejected.	❌ Passes validation. Gets passed to `Duplex.from()`, resulting in a write-only Duplex. The pipeline will never receive any data.
	transform	Should be rejected.	✔️ Fails validation.
	destination	Should be accepted.	✔️ Passes validation.
Non-writable Node stream	source	Should be accepted.	✔️ Passes validation.
	transform	Should be rejected.	❌ Passes validation. Fails asynchronously at runtime: when the previous stream in the pipeline emits data, raises a TypeError due to attempting to call missing Writable methods.
	destination	Should be rejected.	❌ Same as above.
`ReadableStream`	source	Should be accepted.	✔️ Passes validation.
	transform	Should be rejected.	✔️ Fails validation.
	destination	Should be rejected.	❌ Passes validation. Fails asynchronously at runtime: raises a TypeError due to attempting to call the missing `getWriter()` method.
`TransformStream`	source	Undocumented, but should be accepted.	✔️ Passes validation.
	transform	Should be accepted.	✔️ Passes validation.
	destination	Undocumented, but should be accepted.	✔️ Passes validation.
`WritableStream`	source	Should be rejected.	❌ Passes validation. Gets passed to `Duplex.from()`, resulting in a write-only Duplex. The pipeline will never receive any data.
	transform	Should be rejected.	✔️ Fails validation.
	destination	Should be accepted.	✔️ Passes validation.

These should probably be validated consistently.

Other observations:

The docs should specify that TransformStreams are valid source and destination streams, as well as valid return values.
The transform validation error message doesn't specify which parameter failed validation, which is a pain in terms of debugging. Its counterparts in stream.compose() pass the parameter name to the error constructor as streams[n], which would be a fairly straightforward improvement.

Provide feedback