I am a bit confused, what is the relevance of that paper to the comment? Unless I misunderstood, the comment appeared to be about flow control issues of exceptions(hidden control flow and corrupt state), and I don't see that addressed in that paper.
The paper is about subroutines (function calls) being a lot less complex because all a subroutine can do is finish and then go back to its caller. There are no semantics in subroutines for jumping around willy-nilly.
I don't really agree there. Exceptions can only break out. They're a moderately stronger form of return. You can't create spaghetti control flow with exceptions.
There is a reason exceptions are often banned from environments and it isn't because they are awesome. They make code "exceptionally" (zing) hard to reason about.
They can be bad without being goto-like/unstructured. You can make a lot of the same arguments about break statements when it comes to skipping code and reaching a statement without being sure what the previous statement was or screwing up your loop.