Ambiguous wording in `curses.color_pair` description

[peturingi]

Documentation bug: ambiguous wording in curses.color_pair description

The documentation for curses.color_pair currently states:

“This attribute value can be combined with A_STANDOUT, A_REVERSE, and the other A_* attributes.”

This wording is ambiguous because constants like A_COLOR, A_ATTRIBUTES, and A_CHARTEXT also follow the A_* naming pattern. However, those three are bit masks for extraction, not style attributes, and therefore cannot be combined with curses.color_pair().

Suggested clarification

• Explicitly state that curses.color_pair(n) returns an attribute mask that can be combined (via bitwise OR |) with styling attributes such as A_BOLD, A_UNDERLINE, A_REVERSE, etc.
• Clarify that A_COLOR, A_ATTRIBUTES, and A_CHARTEXT are extraction masks used with bitwise AND & when interpreting values returned from methods like win.inch(). They are not style attributes and should not be combined with curses.color_pair().

Example improved wording

“The value returned by curses.color_pair(n) is an attribute mask. It can be combined with other style attributes (such as A_BOLD, A_REVERSE, A_UNDERLINE) using bitwise OR (|).
Note: A_COLOR, A_ATTRIBUTES, and A_CHARTEXT are extraction masks used with bitwise AND (&) on values returned from functions like win.inch(). They are not style attributes and cannot be combined with curses.color_pair().”

Example code

# Valid: combining color pair with style attributes
attr = curses.color_pair(3) | curses.A_BOLD | curses.A_REVERSE
win.addstr("Hello", attr)

# Valid: extracting information from inch()
ch_and_attrs = win.inch()
ch = ch_and_attrs & curses.A_CHARTEXT
color = ch_and_attrs & curses.A_COLOR

# Invalid: attempting to combine with extraction masks (has no effect)
attr = curses.color_pair(3) | curses.A_COLOR    # misleading / incorrect

<!-- gh-linked-prs -->
### Linked PRs
* gh-138079
<!-- /gh-linked-prs -->

[picnixz]

When clicking on the link to A_STANDOUT, the reader is brought to a table which contains the "other" A_* attributes. I think this should be sufficient and I honestly don't want to overcomplicate the docs here. In addition, the bit masks are not really "A_* attributes" so I think this should be sufficiently clear (they are explicitly marked as "bit masks", while the table for attributes has an explicit "Attribute" column).