If by that, you mean that the intention revealing name of the function is always as good as being able to read their source code, then I'm a bit dubious. That's a little better than assuming the comments are never outdated or outright lies. The thing is, naming really well is often hard. By requiring so many more names, I think you've added a whole lot of workload to the developer.
In the right environment, that might actually encourage developers to write short methods. In the wrong one, it might encourage longer ones. It would discourage me from writing DSL control structures.
Gedankenexperiment. Imagine this: An IDE that quickly lets you browse the code for a function by pressing a key, or hovering over its name invoked in code. Some smart cookie then comes up with an add-on that provides a switchable view with in-lines for the function code, as if in a code block.
In the right environment, that might actually encourage developers to write short methods. In the wrong one, it might encourage longer ones. It would discourage me from writing DSL control structures.
Gedankenexperiment. Imagine this: An IDE that quickly lets you browse the code for a function by pressing a key, or hovering over its name invoked in code. Some smart cookie then comes up with an add-on that provides a switchable view with in-lines for the function code, as if in a code block.