Update LDM-2020-05-27.md (#3875)

Replaced incorrect structs with classes in: "less far behind" than structs in record features

meetings/2020/LDM-2020-05-27.md

@@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ record struct Point(int X, int Y);
 On the other hand, we could improve the performance of equality, completely separate from records.
 For instance, the compiler could add equality methods if they are not present. We also do not necessarily
 need to address structs first. Since structs already have many features of records they are, in a sense,
-"less far behind" than structs in record features. It makes sense to concentrate first on classes and
+"less far behind" than classes in record features. It makes sense to concentrate first on classes and
 consider augmentations for structs in a future update.
 
 So to return to the original question, we have to decide if we want to move forward with option (2), which