Not sure why you are using lambda syntax instead of defining a method shrug, but anyway I don't think the type inference shortcoming is inherent to static typing.
I'm sure there is an equally reasonable explanation of costs and implications for your example. Eric Lippert would probably be happy to share it with you, why not ask him? :-)
I'm sure there is an equally reasonable explanation of costs and implications for your example.
There sure is. Had I defined a method (like you suggested), and just gone ahead and made my function variable point to that, the compiler would have enough information to infer types. In that case I would get away with the following:
var someFunction = (X) => entropy(X);
Just felt like contributing somethings which isn't on the HN daily list of languages, that's all :)
See this similar post regarding type inference on fields: http://blogs.msdn.com/ericlippert/archive/2009/01/26/why-no-...
I'm sure there is an equally reasonable explanation of costs and implications for your example. Eric Lippert would probably be happy to share it with you, why not ask him? :-)