Either way a simple no strict 'refs'; seems like the way to go.

sub foo { print "in foo\n"; }

{
  no strict 'refs';
  &{"foo"};
}
[download]

Cute. Is this a Perl bug?

Nope, this is perfectly legal. It just creates a reference, which is then dereferenced and since it's a normal reference (see. not symbolic) strict doesn't have a problem with it. I originally saw this funky trick in a node by gbarr.
HTH

_________
broquaint

use strict;

sub foo { print "fooing\n";

&{\&{"foo"}}; 

\&{"foo"};    
&{"foo"};    # not following the strictures
[download]

Please elucidate.

On what basis are you claiming this is "perfectly legal". I've just gone through the Camel and your referenced pages and find nothing to support this claim.

My opinion:

All of the above constructs should be legal if the first is. \& is not a single op. The \ operates on whatever follows. The & is part of the function name.