Obeying operator precedence in a typical way is not something that's on the table.
(We've discussed doing that as a MATH dialect, though it has proven difficult to process "just the operators" unless function calls are in parentheses, because you have to predict the length of a function call...which may be feasible now with PURE functions--and maybe if you could use pure functions without parentheses but need to parenthesize other expressions that's a good compromise?)
I'm merely talking about the exception which makes:
a op1 b op2 c
Behave differently from:
prefix-op1 a b op2 c
a op1 prefix-op2 b c
prefix-op1 a prefix-op2 b c
...regardless of what those operators are.
I think the same reflex which drove the original simplification drives the desire for the simplification which says those should all be the same.
It reduces the complexity of the evaluator, and I think when people get over "what they're used to" they'll realize it's simpler for users as well.
With richer and more powerful infix mechanics to use in the system, the regularity is more important so that those features combine better. It's not the same climate as when the decision to "fold infix ops before proceeding" was originally made (and I think the decision could have been reasonably questioned even then).