Suggest naming prefixing all unsafe member functions with unsafe

[odinthenerd]

Here https://github.com/roboterclubaachen/xpcc/blob/develop/src/xpcc/architecture/driver/atomic/container.hpp#L158 atomic::Container provides an unsafe function, which is perfectly usefull and ledgitimate. However there is a convention of prefixing all function which violate assumed constraints with 'unsafe' as in unsafeDirectAccess. That way the user or code reviewer knows when they must read the documentation and when they can just assume the best. I would suggest using this convention in xpcc.

This is more of a topic for a mailing list but I did not find one here http://xpcc.io/sitemap.html, I have been known to be stupid though ;)

[ekiwi]

This is more of a topic for a mailing list but I did not find one here http://xpcc.io/sitemap.html, I have been known to be stupid though ;)

There is a mailing list, but it's hidden at the bottom of our Readme file.

Thank you very much for your code review by the way and sorry, that we aren't as quick to respond. Niklas has just started his new job, I'm in the final month(s) of my Bachelor's thesis and most of the code that you have commented on has been in xpcc before we even started working on it, so we aren't to familiar with it either. But we will get to it eventually.
Thanks again!