#!/perl -w
use strict;

# shuffle function from List::Util
sub shuffle (@) {
  my @a=\(@_);
  my $n;
  my $i=@_;
  map {
    $n = rand($i--);
    (${$a[$n]}, $a[$n] = $a[$i])[0];
  } @_;
}


while (<DATA>) {
    my $line = $_;
    my $line_copy = $line;
    while ($line =~ m/(\w+)/g) {
        next if length($1) < 4;
        my $start_offset = pos($line) - length($1) +1;
        my $word_middle_length = length($1) - 2;

        # force two character lead-in and lead-out
        if ($word_middle_length > 4) {
            $word_middle_length -= 2;
            $start_offset++;
        }
        my $word_middle = substr($line, $start_offset, $word_middle_le
+ngth);
        my $shuffled_word_middle = join('', shuffle( split(//, $word_m
+iddle) ) );
        substr($line_copy, $start_offset, $word_middle_length) = $shuf
+fled_word_middle;
    }
    print $line_copy;
}



__DATA__
There is an email which floats around from time to time saying that, b
+ecause of the way
the human brain reads words as a whole, that the order of individual l
+etters isn't that 
important. The only caveat being that the the first and last letters m
+ust be in the 
correct position. Anyway, I thought I'd knock up a perl script to test
+ this, and what do
you know, it works. But only to a point. The example email is clearly 
+tuned, and any
hard to read words seem to have been played around with. This is more 
+noticable for the
longer words, where a two character lead-in and lead-out seems to help
+ massively.

The other thing I noticed was that if you create a new word after the 
+shuffling, then
you only see that new word, which makes things a bit confusing. Enjoy.

PS. I wouldn't try and run perldoc through it, that gets _very_ confus
+ing.
[download]