First off, this is very cool. I'd figure out a name for this and throw it onto CPAN.

A few thoughts:

• The old-timey calling convention with "&" sigil and no parens is intended. Both subs are to be called with the same arguments, so it is convenient to not alter @_ in the base functions and have the arguments brought in automatically.

  This doesn't work as you'd expect for functions that consume parts of @_, particularly with shift. I would make a two shallow copies of @_ and pass one into each of the subroutines. I think that would DWIM better.

• You have conjunction of return values, disjunction of return values, and negation of return value. I would propose that you add composition - f( g( x ) ) - as well. While the first three are good, I can definitely see a need for the fourth. Unfortunately, I'm not quite sure what operation to overload for this. Maybe the bitshift operators? (f << g)(x) means f ( g(x) )? I dunno ...