I knew I should have tried more variations. I guess I always automatically associate lists with arrays and had already excluded round brackets in my mind for that reason.

Thanks for the answer, and I will try to keep in mind that lists are not the same as arrays...

As a follow up to this question though, why doesn't \(&get_string) work. I guess there must be a difference between &func and func(), but I have never come across this in my readings.

put_string_ref( \(&get_string) ); works for me.

According to perldoc perlsub, the & is optional as are the parentheses if the subroutine has been predeclared. The & is not optional when just naming the subroutine. Nor is it optional when you do an indrect subroutine call with a subroutine name or reference using the &$subref() or &{$subref}() constructions, although the $subref->() notatation solves that problem.

For me they work differently.

put_string_ref( \(get_string()) ); # pass return value of get_string()
put_string_ref( \(&get_string) );  # pass a coderef pointing to &get_s
+tring
[download]

I guess if we take what tye mentioned in another response, in that we don't need the brackets for this to work, then it looks like the following holds true:

\&func  # gives you a reference to a function
\func() # gives you a reference to the return value of func
[download]

and a quick test verifies this:

sub func { "the string"; }

print \&func,  "\n";  # prints CODE(0x814d990)
print \func(), "\n";  # prints SCALAR(0x813aa8c)
[download]

I guess what I've learned here is that there can be a big difference between &func and func(). I used to use them interchangably, but I will be more careful from now on.

Thanks for your help...