Add Equals() to mojom structs and related types.

mojo/public/tools/bindings/generators/cpp_templates/wrapper_class_declaration.tmpl

Index: mojo/public/tools/bindings/generators/cpp_templates/wrapper_class_declaration.tmpl
diff --git a/mojo/public/tools/bindings/generators/cpp_templates/wrapper_class_declaration.tmpl b/mojo/public/tools/bindings/generators/cpp_templates/wrapper_class_declaration.tmpl
index 21f29680ab20c006e0888f05c07466d29a9b85b7..f6bea2c5dfb613db5149cc7a21480f13fd02c877 100644
--- a/mojo/public/tools/bindings/generators/cpp_templates/wrapper_class_declaration.tmpl
+++ b/mojo/public/tools/bindings/generators/cpp_templates/wrapper_class_declaration.tmpl
@@ -21,9 +21,11 @@ class {{struct.name}} {
 
   {{struct.name}}();
   ~{{struct.name}}();
+

[yzshen1, 2014/10/14 21:47:21]

nit: This results in two empty lines in the generated code. (But maybe we don't
care about the formatting of the resulting code?)

[Aaron Boodman, 2014/10/14 22:30:13]

I see. That is unfortunate because it means we must choose between styling our
templates consistently with our normal source code, or having the output styled
consistently.

Since the purpose of style rules is to make code easier to understand, I think
we should choose to have the templates consistent with our other source code.

[yzshen1, 2014/10/14 22:47:39]

I think the generated code is what the users want to consult (at least the .h
files).
This template code, on the other hand, is just read/touched by us the platform
developers.

Maybe we should make the template code look nice, and run clang-format on the
generated code? That makes both sides happy. :)

What do you think?

[Aaron Boodman, 2014/10/14 23:24:57]

Does the SDK checkout guarantee clang is present?

[yzshen1, 2014/10/15 00:09:57]

I don't know. :)

 {%  if struct|is_cloneable_kind %}
   {{struct.name}}Ptr Clone() const;
 {%- endif %}
+  bool Equals(const {{struct.name}}& other) const;
 
 {#--- Getters #}
 {%  for field in struct.fields %}