Re: [O] first #+LATEX_HEADER: in SETUPFILE not correctly exported and causes Missing \begin{document} error

[Charles Millar]

Eric,

On 03/26/2016 08:51 AM, Eric S Fraga wrote:
> On Saturday, 26 Mar 2016 at 07:52, Charles Millar wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Thanks for the correction. I escaped the \foo otherwise I had a
> > spurious "oobar" at the beginning of the exported document so that my
> > latex class has
> >
> > \newcommand{\\foo}{bar}
> >
> > I suspect that this problem may be file specific. I exported another
> > file, using the same SETUPFILE and had no problems
> It may have "worked" but the odds are that you were simply
> lucky.  \newcommand expects two {} arguments, the first being the name
> of the command and the second the actual sequence to execute.
I was not clear - I ran the exports after I made the correction to 
"mysetup", i.e. \newcommand{\\foo}{bar}

One file or document exported as I expected; the other file or document 
did not, i.e. still had the extra first page and Missing 
\begin{document} error.
Both documents use a SETUPFILE with identical series of #+LATEX_HEADER:

I do agree that the one file that exports as desired must be a result of 
luck. I compared the output.tex file for each document. In each the 
first \usepackage{foo} which is inserted from the SETUPFILE is indented 
several tabs or spaces to the right and not aligned to the left margin.

Moving that one line to the left margin using e.g. TeXstudo fixes the 
problem.

BTW, I also changed the first #+LATEX_HEADER:  \usepackage{foo} line is 
SETUPFILE to other entries and the same problem, so I don't believe that 
the problem is LaTeX specific. (I also used #+LATEX_HEADER_EXTRA)

What is causing the first LATEX_HEADER:  to indent and therefore causing 
a blank page and missing \begin{document} error?

Charlie