我正在尝试使用 ncursesw6.1（链接到 PicoLisp）。据我所知，PicoLisp 直接传递值的方式是，我通过非 C 语言调用 ncurses 的事实不应该是一个因素[1]。但是，当我尝试使用颜色对（定义如下）时：
(curses "init_pair" NIL 1 *COLOR-SCHEME-TEXT *COLOR-SCHEME-BACKGROUND-DARK)
(curses "init_pair" NIL 2 *COLOR-SCHEME-COMMENT *COLOR-SCHEME-BACKGROUND-DARK)
(curses "init_pair" NIL 3 *COLOR-SCHEME-FUNCTION *COLOR-SCHEME-BACKGROUND-DARK)
(curses "init_pair" NIL 4 *COLOR-SCHEME-VALUE *COLOR-SCHEME-BACKGROUND-DARK)
(curses "init_pair" NIL 5 *COLOR-SCHEME-BACKGROUND-DARK *COLOR-SCHEME-COMMENT)
(curses "init_pair" NIL 6 *COLOR-SCHEME-BACKGROUND-DARK *COLOR-SCHEME-FUNCTION)
(curses "init_pair" NIL 7 *COLOR-SCHEME-BACKGROUND-DARK *COLOR-SCHEME-VALUE)
它不起作用。相反，颜色对 1、2 和 3 都显示为相同的颜色对。然后 4 和 6 显示为*COLOR-SCHEME-COMMENT顶部，*COLOR-SCHEME-BACKGROUND-DARK5 和 7 显示为 4 和 6 的反面。这似乎与我输入的内容没有逻辑关系。更奇怪的是，当我使用非自定义颜色（颜色 0-7）时，它也不起作用，因此通过定义这些配色方案颜色init_color与它无关。
我已经用颜色对 1 单独测试了颜色，所以我知道颜色正在正确初始化。
到底是怎么回事init_pair？
PS 如果我使用 Lisp 的事实让这变得更加困难，我真的很抱歉，我知道它不是一种通用语言。这在当时似乎是个好主意，而且到目前为止还不错……
编辑：我已经重新编译了启用的 libncursesw6.1 --with-trace，这是来自跟踪文件的相关信息：
called {init_pair(0x1d74d00,1,10,8)
+ return }0
+ called {init_pair(0x1d74d00,2,12,8)
+ return }0
+ called {init_pair(0x1d74d00,3,11,8)
+ return }0
+ called {init_pair(0x1d74d00,4,13,8)
+ return }0
+ called {init_pair(0x1d74d00,5,8,12)
+ return }0
+ called {init_pair(0x1d74d00,6,8,11)
+ return }0
+ called {init_pair(0x1d74d00,7,8,13)
+ return }0
这些确实是正确的值，因此正确的值被传递给init_pair. 虽然自定义颜色不是问题，但对于那些想知道的人来说，这里是关于颜色的trace文件信息：*COLOR-SCHEME
started color: COLORS = 256, COLOR_PAIRS = 65536
+ return }0
+ called {init_color(0x1d74d00,8,216,228,252)
+ + called {tparm("\e]4;%p1%d;rgb:%p2%{255}%*%{1000}%/%2.2X/%p3%{255}%*%{1000}%/%2.2X/%p4%{255}%*%{1000}%/%2.2X\e\\", 8, 216, 228, 252)
+ + return }"\e]4;8;rgb:37/3A/40\e\\"
+ return }0
+ called {init_color(0x1d74d00,9,908,956,896)
+ + called {tparm("\e]4;%p1%d;rgb:%p2%{255}%*%{1000}%/%2.2X/%p3%{255}%*%{1000}%/%2.2X/%p4%{255}%*%{1000}%/%2.2X\e\\", 9, 908, 956, 896)
+ + return }"\e]4;9;rgb:E7/F3/E4\e\\"
+ return }0
+ called {init_color(0x1d74d00,10,968,968,968)
+ + called {tparm("\e]4;%p1%d;rgb:%p2%{255}%*%{1000}%/%2.2X/%p3%{255}%*%{1000}%/%2.2X/%p4%{255}%*%{1000}%/%2.2X\e\\", 10, 968, 968, 968)
+ + return }"\e]4;10;rgb:F6/F6/F6\e\\"
+ return }0
+ called {init_color(0x1d74d00,11,612,748,1000)
+ + called {tparm("\e]4;%p1%d;rgb:%p2%{255}%*%{1000}%/%2.2X/%p3%{255}%*%{1000}%/%2.2X/%p4%{255}%*%{1000}%/%2.2X\e\\", 11, 612, 748, 1000)
+ + return }"\e]4;11;rgb:9C/BE/FF\e\\"
+ return }0
+ called {init_color(0x1d74d00,12,508,252,340)
+ + called {tparm("\e]4;%p1%d;rgb:%p2%{255}%*%{1000}%/%2.2X/%p3%{255}%*%{1000}%/%2.2X/%p4%{255}%*%{1000}%/%2.2X\e\\", 12, 508, 252, 340)
+ + return }"\e]4;12;rgb:81/40/56\e\\"
+ return }0
+ called {init_color(0x1d74d00,13,612,136,272)
+ + called {tparm("\e]4;%p1%d;rgb:%p2%{255}%*%{1000}%/%2.2X/%p3%{255}%*%{1000}%/%2.2X/%p4%{255}%*%{1000}%/%2.2X\e\\", 13, 612, 136, 272)
+ + return }"\e]4;13;rgb:9C/22/45\e\\"
+ return }0
此外，虽然我将wborder函数设置为使用颜色对 7，根据调试信息应该是颜色 8 而非颜色 13（与我的代码中的颜色匹配），但trace文件说它实际上使用的是颜色对 5，我在代码中的任何地方都没有使用：
+ called {wborder(0x1da6cd0,{' ' = 040},{' ' = 040},{' ' = 040},{' ' = 040},{' ' = 040},{' ' = 040},{' ' = 040},{' ' = 040})
using {' ' = 040 | {A_BOLD|A_COLOR{5 = {color8, color12}}}}, {' ' = 040 | {A_BOLD|A_COLOR{5 = {color8, color12}}}}, {' ' = 040 | {A_BOLD|A_COLOR{5 = {color8, color12}}}}, {' ' = 040 | {A_BOLD|A_COLOR{5 = {color8, color12}}}}, {' ' = 040 | {A_BOLD|A_COLOR{5 = {color8, color12}}}}, {' ' = 040 | {A_BOLD|A_COLOR{5 = {color8, color12}}}}, {' ' = 040 | {A_BOLD|A_COLOR{5 = {color8, color12}}}}, {' ' = 040 | {A_BOLD|A_COLOR{5 = {color8, color12}}}}
+ return }0
所以，我上面的推测是确实正在发生的事情。颜色对 5 和 7 显示相同，即使颜色和颜色对被正确传递给 ncurses。