> To follow your recommendation would require defining Rust as a memory-safer language, not as the language of memory safety. I'm actually suggesting changes i

> To follow your recommendation would require defining Rust as a memory-safer language, not as the language of memory safety. I'm actually suggesting changes in explanation only, hoping to make these terms less confusing for beginners. Rust veterans know that "safe" code just means "code not in an unsafe block", beginners are often confused by the more common meaning of the word.