Defining implication relation for classical logic

In classical logic, "P implies Q" is equivalent to "not-P or Q". It is well known that the equivalence is problematic. Actually, from "P implies Q", "not-P or Q" can be inferred ("Implication-to-Disjunction" is valid), whereas from "not-P or Q", "P implies Q" cannot be inferred in general ("Disjunction-to-Implication" is not generally valid), so the equivalence between them is invalid in general. This work aims to remove the incorrect Disjunction-to-Implication from classical logic (CL). The logical system (the logic IRL) this paper proposes has the expected properties: (a) CL is obtained by adding Disjunction-to-Implication to IRL, and (b) Disjunction-to-Implication is not derivable in IRL; while (c) fundamental laws in classical logic, including law of excluded middle (LEM) and principle of double negation, law of non-contradiction (LNC) and ex contradictione quodlibet (ECQ), conjunction elimination and disjunction introduction, and hypothetical syllogism and disjunctive syllogism, are all retained in IRL.