[Bro] defining a table of sets

[Vern Paxson]

> In the mean time I will see if I can get some further
> details out of gdb so maybe I can figure out what is going on.

I'm pretty sure I already know what the problem is.  It comes from confusion
deep inside the initialization code of what type to associate with the
list value.  It's messy to fix, which is why it's still there :-(.

> Just so I am clear though, the correct way to define this would be with
> square brackets enclosing the set? As in,
> 
>  [ "a" ] = [ "alpha", "anchor", "armor" ]

Better would be:

	[ "a" ] = set("alpha", "anchor", "armor")

We want to deprecate the [] set initializer.

		Vern