Format 'record' and 'type' as code

[henrikt-ma]

Please see second commit for actual change.

[HansOlsson]

I'm not sure yet, but fundamentally I don't see a clear logic underlying this change.
The full line says "The components directly declared in a record may only be of specialized class record or type."

So, why is the first record not as code, but the second is?

I can understand keeping the first record as non-code, both because it would be too much code (when discussing the special class record) and because it is "record" as a language construct, not the keyword.

However, the latter argument also apply to the "record or type".

I can see that input, output, inner, ... are different as they would (normally) appear directly in the record declaration:

record R
   input R r; // Illegal due to prefix input
   M m; // Illegal since M is not a record
end R;
model M end M;