{"action":"opened","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/spoqa/nirum/issues/65","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/spoqa/nirum","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/spoqa/nirum/issues/65/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/spoqa/nirum/issues/65/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/spoqa/nirum/issues/65/events","html_url":"https://github.com/spoqa/nirum/issues/65","id":172400286,"number":65,"title":"Suggest renaming boxed keyword","user":{"login":"dahlia","id":12431,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/12431?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/dahlia","html_url":"https://github.com/dahlia","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dahlia/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dahlia/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dahlia/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dahlia/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dahlia/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dahlia/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dahlia/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dahlia/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/dahlia/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/spoqa/nirum/labels/enhancement","name":"enhancement","color":"84b6eb"}],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"assignees":[],"milestone":null,"comments":0,"created_at":"2016-08-22T08:56:56Z","updated_at":"2016-08-22T08:56:56Z","closed_at":null,"body":"As @Kroisse previously addressed by word of mouth, the meaning of `boxed` is misleading since `boxed` types are actually not boxed when it comes to JSON!\r\n\r\nSo I suggest: how about renaming `boxed` keyword to `unboxed`?  Although it becomes two letters longer, I believe it would be more predictable and less misleading."}}
{"actor":{"display_login":"dahlia"}}