Re^2: Please help with Regexp::Common

I followed your suggestion and tried this:

use strict;
use Regexp::Common;

(my $reg = $RE{profanity}) =~ s{\A \Q(?:\b\E (.*) \Q\b)\E \z}{$1}xms;

while ( my $word = <DATA> ) {
  chomp $word;
  if ( $word =~ m/$reg/ ) {
    print "Profanity detected: \"$word\"\n";
  } else {
    print "$word\n";
  }
}


__DATA__
aaaabbbbcccc
aaaashitcccc
aaaa1234cccc
ddddeeeeffff
[download]

This way it will find embedded "bad words" without the need for spaces around them, which is what I wanted. I realize the logic in requiring the word boundaries. But I think the fact that $RE{num}{int} finds embedded numbers made me assume that $RE{profanity} should work the same way, or else there might be a switch to toggle the behavior one way or the other.

The reason I need this is to generate temporary (one-use) passwords (like when someone requests a password reset on a website). The generated password should, ideally, be a jumble of random letters and/or numbers, but I don't want to accidentally send someone a password with an "obvious" obscenity embedded, so a simple filter like this is helpful.

Thanks!

Comment on Re^2: Please help with Regexp::Common Download Code

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Please help with Regexp::Common by AnomalousMonk (Archbishop) on Jan 19, 2017 at 18:11 UTC
You might consider adding a test to check if the expected alteration to the original regex was successful. The `\Q(?:\b\E` and `\Q\b)\E` parts of the substitution are rather fragile IMO and may break if the maintainer(s) of Regexp::Common ever change his/her/their notion of what a proper profane regex should look like. `c:\@Work\Perl\monks>perl -wMstrict -le "use Regexp::Common; ;; (my $reg = $RE{profanity}) =~ s{\A \Q(?:\b\E (.*) \Q\b)\E \z}{$1}xms or die 'profanity anchor trim failed'; ;; print qq{bad: '$1'} if 'Matsushita' =~ m{ ($reg) }xms; " bad: 'shit'` [download] Give a man a fish: `<%-{-{-{-<`	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^3: Please help with Regexp::Common by Mr. Muskrat (Canon) on Jan 19, 2017 at 16:14 UTC
Shouldn't you be generating passwords that do not contain any words?	[reply]
Re^4: Please help with Regexp::Common by afoken (Chancellor) on Jan 19, 2017 at 18:38 UTC
Shouldn't you be generating passwords that do not contain any words? https://xkcd.com/936/ Alexander -- Today I will gladly share my knowledge and experience, for there are no sweeter words than "I told you so". ;-)	[reply]
Re^5: Please help with Regexp::Common by Mr. Muskrat (Canon) on Jan 19, 2017 at 18:41 UTC
Fair point but I don't know of that many websites that generate a password longer than 8 characters.	[reply]
Re^6: Please help with Regexp::Common by Your Mother (Archbishop) on Jan 19, 2017 at 19:14 UTC
Re^4: Please help with Regexp::Common by AnomalousMonk (Archbishop) on Jan 19, 2017 at 18:30 UTC
... passwords that do not contain any* words ...* Isn't that a bit like the CRM 114 Discriminator strategic communications security system, which for absolute top security was designed not to receive any messages...? Give a man a fish: `<%-{-{-{-<`	[reply] [d/l]