I was under the impression cadaver was talking about infix math, because looking in the second position for the functional argument allows infixy syntax analysis.
You could combine it with the dot operator of course but I wouldn't really see a reason for it. (Why would you use 3.+.4 instead of (3 + 4)?)
And actually, the example you gave doesn't quite work (because of quote, you can't actually put a symbol in the functional position using the . operator).
