CANCEL Untemplatize PositionAlgorithm<Strategy>::rendersInDifferentPosition()

Untemplatize PositionAlgorithm<Strategy>::rendersInDifferentPosition()

Because of |rendersInDifferentPosition()| is used only for DOM tree, this patch
makes |PositionAlgorithm<Strategy>::rendersInDifferentPosition()| as
function rather than member function of |PositionAlgorithm<Strategy>| template
class to avoid unused template function for improving code health.

Following patch move |rendersInDifferentPosition()| into "htmlediting.cpp" since 
it is used only in editing.

This patch is a preparation of templatizing of |VisiblePosition| for granularity
support in selection on composed tree.

BUG=513568
TEST=n/a; no behavior changes

[yosin_UTC9, 2015-08-03 06:04:04]

yosin@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ hajimehoshi@chromium.org, tkent@chromium.org, yoichio@chromium.org

[yosin_UTC9, 2015-08-03 06:12:32]

PTAL

[yoichio, 2015-08-03 06:19:57]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1270023002/diff/1/Source/core/dom/Position.cpp
File Source/core/dom/Position.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1270023002/diff/1/Source/core/dom/Position.cp...
Source/core/dom/Position.cpp:1081: // TODO(yosin) I'm not sure why do we compare
This is not good comment.
You should be sure or this is a refactoring so the comment is not needed.

[yosin_UTC9, 2015-08-03 06:44:06]

PTAL

https://codereview.chromium.org/1270023002/diff/1/Source/core/dom/Position.cpp
File Source/core/dom/Position.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1270023002/diff/1/Source/core/dom/Position.cp...
Source/core/dom/Position.cpp:1081: // TODO(yosin) I'm not sure why do we compare
On 2015/08/03 06:19:57, yoichio wrote:
> This is not good comment.
> You should be sure or this is a refactoring so the comment is not needed.

Done.

[yoichio, 2015-08-03 08:02:16]

The CQ bit was checked by yoichio@chromium.org

[yoichio, 2015-08-03 08:02:16]

lgtm

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-08-03 08:02:33]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1270023002/20001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1270023002/20001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-08-03 08:07:31]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-08-03 08:07:32]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  blink_presubmit on tryserver.blink (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.blink/builders/blink_presubmit/builds/3...)

[tkent, 2015-08-03 08:16:29]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1270023002/diff/20001/Source/core/dom/Positio...
File Source/core/dom/Position.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1270023002/diff/20001/Source/core/dom/Positio...
Source/core/dom/Position.cpp:1081: if (position1.deprecatedOffset() ==
position2.deprecatedEditingOffset())
Comparing deprecatedOffset and deprecatedEditingOffset looks inconsistent to me.
 Is it intentional?

[yosin_UTC9, 2015-08-03 08:27:41]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1270023002/diff/20001/Source/core/dom/Positio...
File Source/core/dom/Position.cpp (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1270023002/diff/20001/Source/core/dom/Positio...
Source/core/dom/Position.cpp:1081: if (position1.deprecatedOffset() ==
position2.deprecatedEditingOffset())
On 2015/08/03 08:16:29, tkent wrote:
> Comparing deprecatedOffset and deprecatedEditingOffset looks inconsistent to
me.
>  Is it intentional?

This patch simplify replaces |m_offset| to |deprecatedOffset()|. 
We need farther study why original code uses |m_offset|.

[yosin_UTC9, 2015-08-06 05:00:19]

On 2015/08/03 08:16:29, tkent wrote:
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1270023002/diff/20001/Source/core/dom/Positio...
> File Source/core/dom/Position.cpp (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.chromium.org/1270023002/diff/20001/Source/core/dom/Positio...
> Source/core/dom/Position.cpp:1081: if (position1.deprecatedOffset() ==
> position2.deprecatedEditingOffset())
> Comparing deprecatedOffset and deprecatedEditingOffset looks inconsistent to
me.
>  Is it intentional?

Code change itself is identical. But, it is wrong.
I close this patch and submit another patch to use |deprecatedEdigintOffset()|:
http://crrev.com/1272973002