I've been wanting to find a solid answer to the question of whether or not to have runtime checks to validate input for the purposes of ensuring a client has stuck to their end of the agreement in design by contract. For example, consider a simple class constructor:

class Foo
{
public:
  Foo( BarHandle bar )
  {
    FooHandle handle = GetFooHandle( bar );
    if( handle == NULL ) {
      throw std::exception( "invalid FooHandle" );
    }
  }
};

I would argue in this case that a user should not attempt to construct a Foo without a valid BarHandle. It doesn't seem right to verify that bar is valid inside of Foo's constructor. If I simply document that Foo's constructor requires a valid BarHandle, isn't that enough? Is this a proper way to enforce my precondition in design by contract?

So far, everything I've read has mixed opinions on this. It seems like 50% of people would say to verify that bar is valid, the other 50% would say that I shouldn't do it, for example consider a case where the user verifies their BarHandle is correct, but a second (and unnecessary) check is also being done inside of Foo's constructor.