Exercise 3: Why R8's Naming Is More Regular Than RAX's — Possible Solution
====================================================================

THE TWO PATTERNS, SIDE BY SIDE
------------------------------
RAX family: RAX (64-bit) -> EAX (32-bit) -> AX (16-bit) -> AH/AL
(two SEPARATE 8-bit names for the upper and lower half of AX). Four
different naming conventions are in play here: a leading "R", a
leading "E", a bare two-letter form, and a High/Low split using
entirely different letters (H/L) rather than extending the existing
pattern.

R8 family: R8 (64-bit) -> R8D (32-bit) -> R8W (16-bit) -> R8B
(8-bit). Every single width uses the SAME base name (R8) with a
single, consistent suffix letter (D for Double word, W for Word, B
for Byte) added on. One naming pattern, four widths, no exceptions.

WHY R8'S PATTERN IS MORE REGULAR
------------------------------
The RAX family's naming looks the way it does specifically because
each new width was named at a DIFFERENT point in history, by
whichever convention made sense at that specific moment, without ever
going back to rename the earlier ones for consistency. R8's family
was designed all at once, as a single complete naming scheme, with
every width considered together from the very start — so nothing
about it needed to accommodate an older, already-established name.

CONNECTING TO ASSEMBLY2-1'S "FOUR DECADES OF ACCRETION"
------------------------------
This is a direct, small-scale instance of that chapter's own central
theme: RAX's naming irregularity IS the accretion — four separate
historical eras (1978's AX/AH/AL, the 80386's EAX, and finally
long mode's RAX) each added their own naming layer on top of what
already existed, without ever cleaning up or unifying the result.
R8's naming has no accretion to show, because it was never subjected
to that same decades-long layering process — it was invented once,
already inside the modern 64-bit era, with the benefit of hindsight
the original eight registers never had.

WHY THIS WORKS AS AN ANSWER
------------------------------
It lays out both naming patterns explicitly, identifies the specific
mechanical reason R8's is more consistent (designed once, all at once,
vs. layered across separate historical eras), and ties that reason
directly back to assembly2-1's own stated accretion theme rather than
just asserting that one pattern "looks cleaner."