Managing concept properties in ConceptEvaluator

docs/blog.rst

@@ -396,4 +396,77 @@ I must choose between expressing my ideas in this blog and coding.
 I have plenty of ideas that I would like to express, sometimes just to put the idea down,
 but I lack of time. It would be great if I can find a tool that will allow me to just to
 dictate my words. I know that there are plenty out there, I need to spend some time to test
-them and choose one. 
+them and choose one.
+
+2019-11-15
+**********
+
+Managing concepts resolutions
+"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
+I am a little stuck on the algorithm I must use to derive (resolve) concepts. This is
+one of this day I strongly regret to have someone I can discuss with :-(
+
+Let's write the problem down, sometimes, it helps figure out the best approach.
+
+::
+
+    def concept one as 1
+    one
+
+The concept is first define (it returns the number 1), and then it's called.
+During the call
+
+1. During parsing,
+    Both Python parser and concept parser will recognize 'one'
+2. During Evaluation,
+    * Python Evaluator will fail (one is not know by python)
+    * Concept Evaluator will success. My question is what should it return ?
+
+The two option are:
+1. Python node, to let the Python Evaluator work and return one, in the next row
+2. Returns '1' directly
+
+I as write it down, it is obvious that it must return 1, since the purpose of any
+evaluation is to give a result, not the path to find the result.
+
+Plus, if don"t resolve the body in the Concept Evaluator, I will loose where the
+'1' comes from.
+
+I don't know if I was clear. I don't even know if I will be able to re-read myself.
+But I think that I have my solution.
+
+
+2019-11-16
+**********
+
+ExactConceptParser limitation
+"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
+
+From the beginning, my simplest example is to show that addition can be simply
+explained to Sheerka
+
+::
+
+    def concept a plus b as a + b
+    def concept one as 1
+    def concept two as 2
+    one plus two
+
+The :code:`one plus two` is perfectly recognized, and the result is 3.
+:code:`two plus one` also work (with the correct response).
+
+But I was quite surprised to see that :code:`one plus one` was not recognized !!
+
+Indeed, the **ExactConceptParser** looks for :code:`__var0__ plus __var1__`. So
+the first operand and the second have to be different.
+
+It's unexpected :-(
+
+Do I need to enhance the parser to recognize it, or no I need to build another parser ?
+
+If I tell the parser that :code:`a plus b`, how do I handle the cases where 'a 'and 'b'
+MUST be different ? How I handle when the explicitly have to be the same ?
+
+I seems that the purpose of the **ExactConceptParser** is to find exact match.
+I need another way to express that 'a' and 'b' can be the same.
+