discuss terminology of safe vs. unsafe pointers

[secure-sw-dev-bot]

This issue was copied from checkedc/checkedc#11

---

We are using the terminology of safe and unsafe pointer types in the document. It might be better to call them checked and unchecked pointer types instead. There are fewer negative connotations to the term unchecked.

[secure-sw-dev-bot]

Comment from @gdr-at-ms:

Agreed. Would it make sense to categorize the sources of "unsafety"? E.g. distinguish between out-of-bound access, and invalid-because-of-free pointer?

[secure-sw-dev-bot]

Comment from @dtarditi:

Gabby, Chris, Reuben, Shuvendu, and I discussed this in person today. There was consensus that unchecked vs. checked was better terminology to use. To address Gabby's point, we will also make sure that at the point where we introduce the terminology in the specification, it is clearly called out what is checked (bounds) and what is unchecked (object lifetime).

[secure-sw-dev-bot]

Comment from @dtarditi:

The spec has been updated to incorporate the feedback.