We have a code sample which is along the following lines

type Foo interface {
   DoSome() error
}

type AbstractFoo struct {
    Foo
    X
    Y
}

type ConcreteFoo struct {

 .....
}

This looks all good
but the creation of ConcreteFoo looks something like this

concreteFoo := &AbstractFoo{
   X: x,
   Y: y,
}

concreteFoo.Foo = concreteFoo

So essentially a concrete implementation just means initialising an Abstract struct and setting the member interface as self.
This sounds wrong to me as it reads like construct a struct and tell it that its implementation field is self.

I understand this is happening as developers coming from java and other OOP paradigm are trying to implement it. It does not read like an idiomatic golang code but I am also not able to point out the problem.

What would be the idiomatic version of this code ?