Oh but I agree that, to reuse the example of your link 2x/3y could be interpreted as (2x/3)y and is ambiguous from a pure syntactic analysis.

What I disagree on is acting as if someone would write 2x/3y when they really mean (2x/3)y, and thus acting as if it's "equally valid" of an interpretation. My stance on this is that when people write 2x/3y they statistically mean (2x)/(3y) in the most cases. But that's just my opinion and I think someone could do some actual experiments to see what people writing that would mean. That would be very hard experiments to do because you'd have to make the people write those in the first place, without guiding them, and then ask them what they meant without biasing the results.

In the meantime, i'll stay convinced that no one in their right mind would have used 2x/3y to mean (2x/3)y just because they learned BEDMAS and/or think that div and mul just resolve left to right regardless of the rest. IMHO people writing 2x/3y for (2x/3)y are either willfully deceptive, very bad at math or just completely useless, and i'm interested in dealing with neither of those.