type-of semantics unclear for records

[Paul Eggert <eggert@cs.ucla.edu>]

The recently-changed behavior of 'type-of' causes it to disagree with 
its documentation when the type of a record is itself a record. For 
example, the documentation implies that (eq X (type-of (record X))) 
should be t for all X, but this is not the case when X is (record 'a 
'b), because in this case (type-of (record X)) returns b.

I assume the behavior is intended to support subclassing of some sort; 
if so the subclassing should be documented (or at least the doc should 
say that behavior is undefined if the record type is not a symbol), and 
if not the behavior should be changed to agree with the doc.