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 ;)