Please, describe constructor Stream()

[alsemenov]

The description for constructor Stream() is empty. Please, provide some description for:

• purpose of this constructor
• events in the created Stream instance
• properties of the created Stream: broadcast, empty, etc

[lrhn]

The constructor has no description because it really has no purpose.
The class is abstract, so you can't invoke the constructor directly, it's only there to allow subclasses to extend the class. The constructor can't say anything about those subclasses, their events or their being broadcast or not.
There really is nothing to say in this case.

The only reason to add an explicit constructor, instead of relying on the implicit constructor that would be added if it didn't have one, is that it prevents the class from being used as a mixin. That'll probably stop being the meaningful anyway if we add explicit mixin syntax, and at that point, the Stream constructor will just be removed (if not before).

[alsemenov]

I think it makes sense to add description like this:

This constructor should be invoked only by subclasses constructors.

[lrhn]

That would be stating the obvious, which is never a good idea in documentation (users will question themselves why this wasn't obvious).
The constructor can only be invoked by subclass constructors. There is no "should" about it.
On the other hand, that goes for all generative constructors in abstract classes.

To be honest, the constructor should not be there. It's only there to disallow the class being used as a mixin, and only because someone was doing that, even if the class wasn't documented as supporting being used as a mixin. I'd rather remove it than document it because there is no useful documentation to add, and adding unuseful documentation is worse than having none.

[alsemenov]

I think the constructor should have some description. If something is obvious today, tomorrow it can be vague, because things and environment change.

Removing the constructor is also acceptable for me.