Mojo: RemotePtr<S> + bindings changes for Peer attribute.

mojo/public/bindings/generators/mojom_cpp_generator.py

Index: mojo/public/bindings/generators/mojom_cpp_generator.py
diff --git a/mojo/public/bindings/generators/mojom_cpp_generator.py b/mojo/public/bindings/generators/mojom_cpp_generator.py
index e5c764e08ba645ee41a4a64b3709157fba898b65..e159b829e114f69605d1974cbfd13fee58c57869 100644
--- a/mojo/public/bindings/generators/mojom_cpp_generator.py
+++ b/mojo/public/bindings/generators/mojom_cpp_generator.py
@@ -309,9 +309,11 @@ class CPPGenerator(object):
       methods.append(
           "  virtual void %s(%s) %s;" %
               (method.name, ", ".join(params), method_postfix))

[DaveMoore, 2013/11/11 18:49:05]

Since this ends up being a statically defined thing, I find it strange that it's
defined through a dynamic attribute format. Why not express it as a top level
construct. I'd imagine anything defined through a dynamic mechanism to end up as
a dynamic bag of properties that could be interrogated through a C++ api.

+    peer = interface.attributes['Peer']
     return template.substitute(
         CLASS=interface.name,
-        METHODS='.\n'.join(methods))
+        PEER=peer,
+        METHODS='\n'.join(methods))
 
   def GetInterfaceClassDeclarations(self):
     template = self.GetTemplate("interface_declaration")