Rule #1: A longbow +2 adds 2 to your attack roll.
Rule #2: An arrow +2 adds 2 to your attack roll.
If you have those rules, and nothing to say otherwise, your total is +4. Just reading as written.
I think there is an issue of clarity that is independent of "prior edition knowledge".There are no generally applicable rules for things not stacking. The ones that don't are always called out. The magic ammo and weapons are not called out. There is nothing as written in the book to even suggest they shouldn't.
<snip>
I just truly don't see how/why this is a question of clarity.
After all, where did the first set of rules for stacking magical ammuition and bow bonuses come? Not as a result of prior edition knowledge, as there was nothing prior to that first set of rules. That first set of rules (perhaps 1st ed DMG p 168, which expressly allows stacking?) answered a question that is inherent to the game mechanical situation: does the game really allow a character who choose a bow as his/her weapon to get bigger magical bonuses with his/her weapon than a character who chooses sword?
If the answer is "yes' because this is balanced by the existence of potions of giant strength (but no corresponding potions of accuracy) or by limiting bows to +1 (as in AD&D; to get bigger bonuses you have to go to the crossbow of acuracy, which has a significantly slower rate of attack) or simply because of the rarity of the arrow component of the combo, than great! But those answers aren't very transparent, at least to me.