Avoid using the term "null-marked *scope*?"

[cpovirk]

(perhaps in general but notably in the spec)

I think we discussed this at least one. The reasoning may largely have been that "scope" means a lot of things in the programming world. Perhaps related to some such conversation, @kevinb9n appears to have used the term "null-marked code" in the Javadoc. We could use "code." Or we could use "element" (since the places that @NullMarked can live are elements), but that's not great because part of an element (e.g., a method within a class) can be null-unmarked after the enclosing element was null-marked.

(Hmm, speaking of which: I may be conflating this proposed terminology tweak with another tweak that we already made, which is to prefer "enclosing" to "containing." Still, I think we have additionally talked about considering avoiding "scope.")