##
# sub sex()
# returns qw( yes no maybe somtimes male female 
# only_on_tuesdays when_i_get_older ) or a miryad of other 
# possibilities.
[download]

I never lost sight of the fact that this was about readability, hence my two initial points
• use of ? would add ambiguity (the antithesis of readability)
• Incredibly_long_sentence_like_function_names are not readable and if you need/insist on that sort of large definition for something I think OO is a better route.
And yet when lachoy makes the second point here it isn't so difficult to accept.

--
perl -pew "s/\b;([mnst])/'$1/g"

One: Obviously, you disagree with my original point that allowing question marks in subroutine declarations would make things more readable. You disagree with me and I disagree with you. But at least that is what I was asking about.

Two: Obviously we disagree about your second point as well. While I do not use really_rediculously_long_variable_names_that_are_not_meaningful, I do use "readable, descriptive names". (See the examples.)
Also, I don't know what gave you the idea that these particular functions aren't being called via an object in a package.

Maybe reading my response to lachoy's post will get you and I closer to the same page.