+0
It is generally recognized that the adjunct element is coming after the complement constituent.
But the exmaple that I found in the exercises seems quite contradictory to what I just said at the very beginning.

e.g. Joanna was in a wheelchair as she was still too weak
from her operation to walk far.

I think to-infinitive element forms a more strong tie with the adjective 'weak' than the phrase headed by 'from' does.
However that sentence is brought from a grammatical book, so I quite sure that I must have something missing with my thought.

To put it simply, what reason is there to make that underlined order possible?
+0
Joanna was in a wheelchair as she was still too {weak from her operation} to walk far. That is natural English. The reason for her inability to walk far is her weakness from (as a consequence of) the operation

Joanna was in a wheelchair as she was still too weak to walk far from her operation. This could suggest that it was the operation she was unable to walk far from, which is clearly nonsense.
Comments  
Thank you for the answer,
The answer you gave makes me clearly understand the meaning of the original sentence. And the comparison with the reverse version is also of much help.
Still, I have a confusion with some points.

a. from-phrase is seen to be adjunct?

b. The deep structure to be drawn from the original sentence
is what you see below, though I just guessed it.

i.e. she was still too weak from her operation [PRO to walk
far].
Then, from-phrase lies apparently outside the infinitive
clause. So it seems that the whole adjectival phrase node
is the sister node with the infinitive clause.
In sum, from-phrase is the adjunct in the subordinate level
so that it can't be subject to the rule of adjunct-
complement order. Is my guess right?

c. The infinitive clause is the complement of the adjective.
Is this right thinking?