Types Inheritance - Naming problem

Maybe I'm beeing completely daft, but I have a problem when I'm tying to create an nice way to express iherited classes. Look at this example. It is a type called Foo that contains a type called Bar that is accessable trough Foo.Bar

Strict

Type Foo

	Field Bar:Bar = New Bar

End Type

Type Bar
	
	Field SomeValue:Int = 1

End Type


Global myFoo:Foo = New Foo

DebugLog myFoo.Bar.SomeValue

This example does not work. The problem occurs when I try to assign the "Bar" Field in the "Foo" type. There is a name collision an with the field having the same name as the type that I'm trying to create. If we adjust the example like this...:

Strict

Type Foo

	Field BarName:Bar = New Bar

End Type

Type Bar
	
	Field SomeValue:Int = 1

End Type


Global myFoo:Foo = New Foo

DebugLog myFoo.BarName.SomeValue

...everything works fine. But the point is that I want the Field name to be same as the type name because it makes the syntax for retriving "SomeValue" more logical:

myFoo.Bar.SomeValue


Maybe it is my method of implementing this type of inheritance that is comletely wrong.

Ideas anyone?

This is no inheritance.

Inheritance would be with

type foo

end type
type bar extends foo

end type

Well, yeah you are right. It's not inheritance in the traditional sense. What should I call it then...Object inheritance?

That's just the way max is. Stick a T in front of your type names. Bar:Tbar=new Tbar. Not the answer you were hoping for, but it's an answer.

It has nothing to do with inheritance, so no kind of inheritance. It is a simple object reference.

I simply place an underscore in front of all field variables which prevents naming conflicts.

Type Foo
    Field _bar:Bar
End Type

What Falken said, and it would look like this:

Strict

Type TFoo

	Field Bar:TBar = New TBar

End Type

Type TBar
	
	Field SomeValue:Int = 1

End Type


Global Foo:TFoo = New TFoo

DebugLog Foo.Bar.SomeValue

@Dreamora
Object reference! Thank you! That was the word I was looking for.

@Falken, Robert, Wave.
Yeah, but what you are saying is what I already did in the second example in the original post. So the question is not how to solve it. I know that. The point Í'm making is that a field or variable name can not be the same as the name of a type.

Actually the correct buzzword is a composite object. (As in an object that is composed of others).