Add simpler reset!

[tmigot]

See JuliaSmoothOptimizers/JSOSolvers.jl#171 for an example

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Base: 93.20% // Head: 93.25% // Increases project coverage by +0.04% 🎉

Coverage data is based on head (6c0d8aa) compared to base (7f68017).
Patch coverage: 100.00% of modified lines in pull request are covered.

Additional details and impacted files

@@            Coverage Diff             @@
##             main      #49      +/-   ##
==========================================
+ Coverage   93.20%   93.25%   +0.04%     
==========================================
  Files           3        3              
  Lines         162      163       +1     
==========================================
+ Hits          151      152       +1     
  Misses         11       11              

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/solver.jl	71.42% <100.00%> (+4.76%)	⬆️

Help us with your feedback. Take ten seconds to tell us how you rate us. Have a feature suggestion? Share it here.

☔ View full report at Codecov.
📢 Do you have feedback about the report comment? Let us know in this issue.

[github-actions]

Package name	latest	stable
CaNNOLeS.jl
DCISolver.jl
DerivativeFreeSolvers.jl
FletcherPenaltySolver.jl
JSOSolvers.jl
NLPModelsIpopt.jl
Percival.jl
RipQP.jl
SolverBenchmark.jl
SolverTest.jl

[dpo]

I find it a bit silly that NLPModels's reset! overloads LinearOperators's reset!. Can't each package have its own reset! so that we write NLPModels.reset!(model), LinearOperators.reset!(A) andSolverCore.reset!(solver)?

[dpo]

Alternatively, if there are other methods in the same situation, we could gather them in a base package and overload that one.

[tmigot]

I wasn't that surprised given that NLPModels is dependence of SolverCore and LinearOperators is a dep of NLPModels, and found more user-friendly to avoid warning.
But, I understand your point, so there should be a modification in NLPModels to start with and see how it breaks.