Revert "fix Issue 16193 - opApply() doesn't heap allocate closure"

This reverts commit f7819c8.

Fixes issue 16678

changelog.dd

@@ -8,39 +8,12 @@ $(BUGSTITLE Language Changes,
 )
 
 $(BUGSTITLE Compiler Changes,
-    $(LI $(RELATIVE_LINK2 iteration_closure, Assumes opApply delegate parameter escapes unless marked `scope`))
 )
 
 $(BUGSTITLE Language Changes,
 )
 
 $(BUGSTITLE Compiler Changes,
-    $(LI $(LNAME2 iteration_closure, Assumes opApply delegate parameter escapes unless marked `scope`)
-
-    $(P This breaking change was required to fix bug with `@safe` violation: $(BUGZILLA 16193).)
-
-    $(P To list all places where closure may be allocated after the change, use `-transition=safe`
-        compiler switch.)
-
-    $(P Example:)
-
-        ---
-        struct S1 {
-            int opApply(int delegate(int) dg);
-        }
-
-        struct S2 {
-            int opApply(scope int delegate(int) dg);
-        }
-
-        void foo() {
-            foreach(i; S1.init) { // will allocate closure
-            }
-            foreach(i; S2.init) { // won't allocate closure
-            }
-        }
-        ---
-    )
 )
 
 Macros:

src/statementsem.d

@@ -1447,17 +1447,6 @@ private extern (C++) final class StatementSemanticVisitor : Visitor
                 }
                 else
                 {
-                    if (global.params.vsafe)
-                    {
-                        fprintf(
-                            global.stdmsg,
-                            "%s: To enforce @safe compiler allocates a closure unless the opApply() uses 'scope'\n",
-                            loc.toChars()
-                        );
-                        fflush(global.stdmsg);
-                    }
-                    fld.tookAddressOf = 1;
-
                     assert(tab.ty == Tstruct || tab.ty == Tclass);
                     assert(sapply);
                     /* Call: