groking about dynamic type languages.

[David Broadwell (remove spam.)]

am i correct tht only a dynamic langugage would be capable of the
follwing assosiation without a TON of code to specifically define the
behaviours?

for example, i have a number of predefined classes that instanceinto
'tool' objects. (tool objects work on other ojects only).

let us uas i also have another object, a light switch (wall mount),
wrapped in a 'wall mount plate wrapper' that requires a screwdriver tool
object to unwrap. (screw are of a unstated type)

in a dynamic language i just pick up the screwdriver and let the
'dynmaic' type bindings choose whych screwdriver tip to use on the
screws of the plate. (if we have the appropriate type)

~Right~?

(this happens to me.. and i have to say this is a extention of my
brocling that led to understanding OO proper.. much like what happened
to understand electrons and electronics MANY years ago)